Punjab-Haryana High Court
Charan Singh vs State Of Haryana on 25 April, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056791
CRR-2403-2011 (O&M) -1- 2024:PHHC:056791
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
228
CRR-2403-2011 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 25.04.2024
Charan Singh ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. R.K. Dhiman, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. G.S. Dhillon, AAG, Haryana.
*****
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. The instant revision has been preferred by Charan Singh,
challenging judgment dated 20.08.2011 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Panipat, whereby, judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 07.10.2010 and 08.10.2010 respectively passed by the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Panipat, in complaint case bearing No.56-2 of 2004, has
been upheld, vide which, the accused - petitioner has been convicted and
sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year for commission of offence
punishable under Section 7 read with Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of
Food Adulteration Act, 1954 along-with fine to the tune of Rs.1000/- and in
default thereof, to undergo further imprisonment for one month.
2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that
in view of the concurrent findings of both the Courts below, he does not want
to challenge the conviction of the petitioner. However, he submits that in view
of the circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded by the Courts below is
on higher side.
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056791
CRR-2403-2011 (O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:056791
3. Here it would be pertinent to mention that petitioner did not
challenge his conviction on merits and only confined his relief qua quantum of
sentence. This Court has also scrutinized the impugned judgment(s) as well as
the relevant documents/evidence and is of the considered view that there is no
scope for any interference in impugned judgment(s) as far as the conviction of
the petitioner is concerned. As such, the conviction of the petitioner is upheld.
4. As far as quantum of sentence is concerned, there are mitigating
circumstances to take a lenient view in the matter of sentence awarded by the
trial court and upheld by the appellate court. Moreover, petitioner has already
suffered incarceration for a period of more than three months out of total
substantive sentence of one year. Thus, this court is of the considered view that
a chance be given to the petitioners to reform & improve himself; to become a
good citizen; and to lead a peaceful & harmonious life.
5. Taking into consideration the above narrated discussion as well as
the fact that petitioner has not challenged his conviction on merits, while
affirming their conviction, the order of sentence is modified to the extent to the
period already undergone by him with no change in fine clause.
6. With the aforesaid modification in the quantum of sentence, the
revision petition stands disposed of.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
25.04.2024 JUDGE
D.Bansal
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
2 of 2
