Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaggi vs State Of Haryana on 22 December, 2022
1
CRR-931 of 2019 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-931 of 2019 (O&M)
Reserved on: 19.12.2022
Date of Pronouncement: 22.12.2022
Jaggi
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Argued by: - Mr. S.K. Rana, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, DAG, Haryana.
NAMIT KUMAR, J.
This revision petition has been filed against the judgment
dated 15.02.2019 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Faridabad, upholding the judgment of conviction dated
09.09.2016 and order of sentence dated 12.09.2016 passed by the Court
of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad, whereby petitioner
has been held guilty and sentenced as under: -
Sr. Under Section Simple Fine In default to
No. imprisonment undergo
simple
imprisonment
1. 120-B IPC One year Rs.500/- 7 days
2. 420/120-B IPC One year Rs.1000/- 15 days
3. 468/120-B IPC One year Rs.1000/- 15 days
4. 471/120-B IPC One year Rs.1000/- 15 days
1 of 3
CRR-931 of 2019 (O&M)
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
allegations against the petitioner are that he had submitted fabricated
insurance cover note to the Court while satisfying the challan under the
Motor Vehicles Act. He also contends that the petitioner had used the
services of an agent who had submitted the documents. The petitioner
is not involved in any other case and he is the sole bread winner of the
family. Learned counsel further contends that he is confining his
prayer in this petition to the reduction of the quantum of sentence as the
petitioner has already undergone imprisonment for almost seven
months out of the total sentence of one year. No useful purpose would
be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars anymore since his
sentence has been suspended by this Court vide order dated 26.08.2019.
Under these circumstances, the sentence imposed upon the petitioner may
be reduced to the one already undergone by him.
On the other hand, learned State counsel, while opposing the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit
that the sentence awarded to the petitioner is in proportion to the offence
committed by him. The petitioner does not deserve any leniency.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
As per custody certificate dated 16.12.2022, petitioner has
already undergone actual sentence for 06 months and 14 days. Therefore,
in view of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served
by sending the petitioner, whose sentence has been suspended by this
Court vide order dated 26.08.2019, behind the bars any more. It is a fit
2 of 3
CRR-931 of 2019 (O&M)
case wherein sentence awarded to the petitioner can be reduced to the
period already undergone. Ordered accordingly.
Impugned judgment of conviction stands affirmed with
above modification. The sentence of fine however, shall stand maintained.
The petitioner will have to deposit the fine, if not already deposited.
Disposed of.All pending applications, if any, stand
disposedoff.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
22.12.2022 JUDGE
R.S.
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
