CRR-3576-2017 (O&M) -1- 254 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH CRR-3576-2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.03.2025 PIPPAL SINGH …Petitioner V/S THE FAZILKA CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. AND ANOTHER …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. A.K. Sama, Advocate for the petitioner. None for respondent No. 1. Mr. Nitesh Sharma, DAG Punjab. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral) 1. The present revision petition is preferred against the judgment dated 19.07.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka vide which judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence dated 31.08.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka have been upheld, whereby, petitioner has been convicted and sentenced as under: Offence under Section Sentence Fine Sentence in default of payment of fine 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act Rigorous imprisonment for one year Rs. 5,000/- Rigorous imprisonment for one month 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 19.07.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka on merits and restricts his prayer AJAY GOSWAMI 2025.03.21 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-3576-2017 (O&M) -2- to modification of the order on quantum of sentence dated 31.08.2016 to that of sentence already undergone by the petitioner as he has already undergone a period of more than 03 months out of total sentence of 01 year imposed upon him. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that learned trial Court has passed a well-reasoned judgment based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record and the said judgment has also been upheld by learned lower Appellate Court and as such, he does not deserve any leniency. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 5. In Deo Narain Mandal v. State of UP (2004) 7 SCC 257, a three Judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that awarding of sentence is not a mere formality in criminal cases. When a minimum and maximum term is prescribed by the statute with regard to the period of sen- tence, a discretionary element is vested in the Court. Background of each case, which includes factors like gravity of the offence, manner in which the offence is committed, age of the accused, should be considered while determining the quantum of sentence and this discretion is not to be used arbitrarily or whimsically. After assessing all relevant factors, proper sen- tence should be awarded bearing in mind the principle of proportionality to ensure the sentence is neither excessively harsh nor does it come across as lenient. 6. Further, a two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AJAY GOSWAMI Ravada Sasikala v. State of AP AIR 2017 SC 1166, has reiterated that the 2025.03.21 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-3576-2017 (O&M) -3- imposition of sentence also serves a social purpose as it acts as a deterrent by making the accused realise the damage caused not only to the victim but also to the society at large. The law in this regard is well settled that oppor- tunities of reformation must be granted and such discretion is to be exer- cised by evaluating all attending circumstances of each case by noticing the nature of the crime, the manner in which the crime was committed and the conduct of the accused to strike a balance between the efficacy of law and the chances of reformation of the accused. 7. A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court indicates no perversity in its findings and the said judgment is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioner has not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits, rather he has restricted his prayer only qua modification of quantum of sentence. 8. The complaint in the present case was filed on 27.11.2012 and the petitioner has been suffering the agony of trial since the last more than 12 years. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone total sentence of 03 months and 28 days including remmission out of total sen- tence of one year awarded to him. 9. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 10. Consequently, the present petition is disposed of in the following terms:- AJAY GOSWAMI 2025.03.21 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-3576-2017 (O&M) -4- (i) The judgment of conviction dated 19.07.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka is upheld, however, the order of sentence dated 31.08.2016 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him. (ii) The fine imposed upon the appellant already stands paid. Hence, no directions are required to be issued in this regard. 11. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) 20.03.2025 JUDGE Ajay Goswami Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No AJAY GOSWAMI 2025.03.21 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document