261 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA SARWAN SINGH THE PUNJAB STATE FEDERATION AND CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. Mr. Dr. Puneet Kaur Sekhon, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. This revision conviction and order on quantum of sentence learned Sessions Judge, 04.02.2020 passed by was reversed, in case stemming from 15.11.2014 registered was sentenced as under : Offence under Section(s) 406 IPC 2. Learned counsel for the assailing the impugned judgment of conviction IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH SARWAN SINGH V/S THE PUNJAB STATE CO-OPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION AND ANOTHER HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Sukhwinder Singh Kainth, Advocate Mr. Vivek Dahiya, Advocate for Dr. Puneet Kaur Sekhon, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment conviction and order on quantum of sentence learned Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, vide which passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, in case stemming from a complaint bearing No.106 dated registered under Sections 406/420/120 was sentenced as under : Offence under Section(s) Sentence RI for Rs.10,000/ fine to further undergo imprisonment for one month. earned counsel for the petitioner assailing the impugned judgment of conviction IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-1718-2022 (O & M) Date of decision: 08.04.2025 ...PETITIONER OPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING ...RESPONDENTS HARPREET SINGH BRAR Sukhwinder Singh Kainth, Advocate for the petitioner. Dr. Puneet Kaur Sekhon, Advocate for respondent No.1. has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence dated 25.07.2022 passed by vide which, judgment dated learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fatehgarh Sahib a complaint bearing No.106 dated 406/420/120-B of IPC and the petitioner Sentence nine months with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for one month. petitioner contends that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 25.07.2022 on merits Fatehgarh Sahib MANISHA 2025.05.01 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-1718-2022 and restricts his that of the sentence already undergone by the that the petitioner has undergone a period of about one month, sentence of nine months, not a previous convict. 3. Per contra counsel opposes the pray well-reasoned judgment based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record, as such, 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 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 sentence, a discretionary element is vested in the C 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 sentence 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 Ben Ravada Sasikala v. State of AP AIR 2017 SC 1166 imposition of sentence also serves a social purpose as it acts as a deterrent by 2022 (O & M) 2 prayer to modification of the order that of the sentence already undergone by the that the petitioner has undergone a period of about one month, nine months, awarded by learned lower Appellate a previous convict. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 assisted by opposes the prayer of the petitioner as learned trial Court has passed a reasoned judgment based on correct appreciation of evidence available on as such, he does not deserve any leniency. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. Deo Narain Mandal v. State of UP (2004) 7 SCC 257 ench 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 sentence, a discretionary element is vested in the C 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 y or whimsically. After assessing all relevant factors, proper sentence 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. Further, a two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravada Sasikala v. State of AP AIR 2017 SC 1166 imposition of sentence also serves a social purpose as it acts as a deterrent by prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence to that of the sentence already undergone by the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner has undergone a period of about one month, out of total lower Appellate Court and he is counsel for respondent No.1 assisted by State as learned trial Court has passed a reasoned judgment based on correct appreciation of evidence available on not deserve any leniency. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Deo Narain Mandal v. State of UP (2004) 7 SCC 257, a Three ench 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 sentence, 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 y or whimsically. After assessing all relevant factors, proper sentence 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. ch of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravada Sasikala v. State of AP AIR 2017 SC 1166, has reiterated that the imposition of sentence also serves a social purpose as it acts as a deterrent by MANISHA 2025.05.01 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-1718-2022 making the accused realise the damage caused not only to the victim to the society at large. The law in this regard is well settled that opportunities of reformation must be granted and such discretion is to be exercised 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 lower Appellate based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. the petitioner was convicted under Section punishment has been prescribed. has not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits, rather he has restricted his prayer only qua 8. The petitioner has been suffering the agony of Since his conviction, the desires to live a peaceful life. about one month lower Appellate 9. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section 406 of IPC, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the pe already undergone by him. 10. Consequently, the present 2022 (O & M) 3 making the accused realise the damage caused not only to the victim to the society at large. The law in this regard is well settled that opportunities of reformation must be granted and such discretion is to be exercised by evaluating all attending circumstances of each case by noticing the nature of he 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. A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned lower Appellate Court indicates no perversity in its findings and the same is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. ner was convicted under Section 406 of IPC, for which no minimum punishment has been prescribed. Moreover, learned counsel for the has not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits, rather he has restricted prayer only qua modification of quantum of sentence. The complaint in the present case was been suffering the agony of trial for the conviction, the petitioner has grown into law to live a peaceful life. Further, the petitioner has undergone a period of th, out of total sentence of nine months, lower Appellate Court. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section of IPC, 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. Consequently, the present petition 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 opportunities of reformation must be granted and such discretion is to be exercised by evaluating all attending circumstances of each case by noticing the nature of he 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 A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned indicates no perversity in its findings and the same is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. It transpires that of IPC, for which no minimum earned counsel for the petitioner has not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits, rather he has restricted quantum of sentence. in the present case was filed on 15.11.2014 and the for the last more than 10 years. grown into law-abiding citizen and , the petitioner has undergone a period of nine months, awarded by learned Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Section of IPC, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the interest of titioner is reduced to the period petition is disposed of and the MANISHA 2025.05.01 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRR-1718-2022 judgment dated Sahib is upheld, however, the order of sentence dated to the extent that the sentence of fine of Rs.10,000/ reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by 11. Pending mis disposed of. April 08, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) 2022 (O & M) 4 judgment dated 25.07.2022 passed by the learned is upheld, however, the order of sentence dated to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10,000/- along with default mechanism reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) (HARPREET SINGH BRAR Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh is upheld, however, the order of sentence dated 25.07.2022 is modified imprisonment for nine months and a along with default mechanism awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him. cellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.05.01 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment