239 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-2417-2019 Date of decision: 09.04.2025 Khush Nain ....Petitioner Versus Union Territory Chandigarh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Rahul Noorie, Advocate for Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pawan Kumar Dogra, Addl.P.P., U.T. Chandigarh. HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) 1. The present revision petition is preferred against the judgment dated 02.09.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, vide which the appeal against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.05.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh, in FIR No.199 dated 27.11.2015 filed under Sections 411/473 of IPC, has been dismissed. The petitioner was sentenced as under: Offence Sentence Section 411 of IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 01 year. Section 473 of IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 01 year and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of which Simple Imprisonment for one month. It was ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. After assessing the material available on record, the learned trial Court convicted the petitioner vide judgment dated 10.05.2017. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned lower Appellate Neha 2025.04.11 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2417-2019 -2- Court and the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 02.09.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 10.05.2017 on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence, to that of the sentence already undergone by the petitioner, as the petitioner has already undergone a total period of 05 months in custody and he is involved in three more cases, out of which, he was released on bail in two cases. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the petitioners as the learned Courts below have passed well-reasoned judgments based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record and further submits that the petitioner is involved in three more cases, as such, he does not deserve any leniency. However, he could not controvert the fact that he was released on bail in two cases. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the petitioner was convicted under Sections 411/473 of IPC for which no minimum punishment has been prescribed. As per his custody certificate, the petitioner has already undergone a period of 05 months in custody out of total sentence of 01 year, in the instant case. Since there is no minimum punishment prescribed under Sections 411/473 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. 6. In Deo Narain Mandal vs. State of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 257, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that awarding of sentence is not a mere Neha 2025.04.11 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2417-2019 -3- 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 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. 7. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravada Sasikala vs. 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 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 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. 8. A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court indicates no perversity in its findings and the same is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. However, the FIR (supra) was lodged on 27.11.2015 and the petitioner has been suffering the agony of trial for last more than 10 years. Since his conviction, he has grown into a law-abiding citizen and desire to live a peaceful life. Neha 2025.04.11 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-2417-2019 -4- 9. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, the present revision petition is disposed of in the following terms:- (i) The judgment dated 02.09.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, is upheld and sentence of one year along with fine awarded by the learned trial Court is further reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by the petitioner. 10. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 09.04.2025 Neha Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Neha 2025.04.11 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document