Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bikkar Singh vs State Of Punjab on 19 January, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009070
CRR-282-2011 -1- 2024:PHHC:009070
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
1) CRR-282-2011
Date of decision: 19.01.2024
Bikkar Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
The State of Punjab ...Respondent
2) CRR-384-2011
Date of decision: 19.01.2024
Prabhjinder Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
The State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. S.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate
for the petitioner (in CRR 282-2011).
Mr. Narinder Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner (in CRR 384-2011).
Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.
1. This common order of mine shall dispose of both the above-
mentioned revision petitions as they arise out of the same factual matrix and the
same FIR. For the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CRR-282-2011.
2. The present revision petition is preferred against the judgment
dated 27.01.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur vide
which the judgment of conviction dated 08.07.2010 passed by learned Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Zira in FIR No. 29 dated 01.03.2000 under Sections 420,
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009070
CRR-282-2011 -2- 2024:PHHC:009070
465, 468, 471, 120-B IPC of the IPC registered at Police Station Makhu, has
been upheld. However, the learned lower Appellate Court modified the order of
sentence in the following terms for both the petitioners:
Offence under Section Sentence
420 IPC RI 2 years along with a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of
which RI of 10 days
468 IPC RI 2 years along with a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of
which RI of 10 days
465 IPC RI 2 years along with a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of
which RI of 10 days
471 IPC RI 2 years along with a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of
which RI of 10 days
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
3. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner-Bikkar Singh was the
Sarpanch of Village Fatehgarh Sabhrah while petitioner-Prabhjinder Singh was
the Panchayat Secretary. Two resolutions were passed by the Panchayat first,
dated 07.12.1998 whereby Rs. 20,000/- were allowed to be withdrawn from Co-
operative Bank, Makhu for repair of a room in dharamshala and the other dated
22.12.1998 whereby another Rs. 20,000/- were allowed to be withdrawn to
construct boundary wall of the dharamshala. Complainant-Mohinder Singh, a
member of the Panchayat, alleges that neither was he informed of the
resolutions nor did he place his thumb impressions on the same. Accordingly,
on 21.09.1999 the complainant made an application before the Block
Development and Panchayat Officer, Makhu for investigation into the same.
4. On finding a prima facie case, charges were framed against the
accused under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 of the IPC to which they pleaded not
guilty and claimed trial.
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009070
CRR-282-2011 -3- 2024:PHHC:009070
5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 14
witnesses including the complainant, three Panches, all three enquiry officers,
Bank Manager and two Naib Tehsildars. Subsequently, the petitioners were
convicted by the trial Court vide judgment dated 08.07.2010. Aggrieved by the
judgment of conviction, the petitioners approached the learned lower Appellate
Court, where their appeals were dismissed vide judgment dated 27.01.2011.
CONTENTIONS
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that they are not
assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 08.07.2010 on merits and
restricts their prayer to modification of the order of quantum of sentence to that
of the sentence already undergone by petitioners as Bikkar Singh has already
undergone a period of 14 days of custody while Prabhjinder Singh has already
undergone a period of 1 month 11 days of custody. He further submits that the
sentence of petitioner-Bikkar Singh was suspended by this Court vide order
dated 03.02.2011 and the sentence of petitioner-Prabhjinder Singh was
suspended by this Court vide order dated 08.03.2011. Since the suspension of
their sentence, they have not been involved in any other criminal activity.
Furthermore, no other case is pending against them. Learned counsel further
submits that both the petitioners are over 70 years of age and intend to live their
life as law-abiding citizens.
7. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the
petitioners as the learned trial Court has passed a well-reasoned judgment based
on correct appreciation of evidence available on record, which has been upheld
by the learned lower Appellate Court, as such, they do not deserve any leniency.
ANALYSIS AND OBSERVATIONS
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009070
CRR-282-2011 -4- 2024:PHHC:009070
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-
book with their able assistance.
9. In Deo Narain Mandal v. State 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
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. Further,
a two Judge Bench 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 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. In order to determine the quantum of sentence, Courts should bear in
mind the principle of proportionality as awarding punishment is not merely
retributive but also reformative.
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009070
CRR-282-2011 -5- 2024:PHHC:009070
10. As per the custody certificates produced by the learned State
counsel, details of custody period of the petitioners are tabulated as under:-
Petitioner- Bikkar Singh:
Sr Particulars Period Duration
No.
1. Custody under trial - -
2. Custody after conviction 27.01.2011 to 14 days
10.02.2011
3. Interim bail - -
4. Actual custody period after 27.01.2011 to 14 days
conviction 10.02.2011
5. Actual undergone period 27.01.2011 to 14 days
10.02.2011
6. Earned remission - -
7. Total sentence including 27.01.2011 to 14 days
remission 10.02.2011
Petitioner- Prabhjinder Singh:
Sr Particulars Period Duration
No.
1. Custody under trial - -
2. Custody after conviction 27.01.2011 to 1 month 11
09.03.2011 days
3. Interim bail - -
4. Actual custody period after 27.01.2011 to 1 month 11
conviction 09.03.2011 days
5. Actual undergone period 27.01.2011 to 1 month 11
09.03.2011 days
6. Earned remission - -
7. Total sentence including 27.01.2011 to 1 month 11
remission 09.03.2011 days
11. A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial
Court and the learned lower Appellate Court indicates no perversity in their
finding and the same are based on correct appreciation of evidence available on
record. Learned counsel for the petitioners have not assailed the judgment of
conviction on merits, rather they have restricted their prayer to quantum of
sentence.
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009070
CRR-282-2011 -6- 2024:PHHC:009070
CONCLUSION
12. The FIR in the present case was instituted on 01.03.2000.
Petitioners have been facing protracted proceedings for about 24 years and are
not involved in any other criminal activity after their conviction in the present
case and during the pendency of the present revision. Since their conviction,
petitioners have grown into a law-abiding citizen and desire to live a peaceful
life. Out of the total sentence awarded of 2 years, Bikkar Singh has already
undergone a period of 14 days of custody while Prabhjinder Singh has already
undergone a period of 1 month 11 days of custody. Accordingly, this Court is of
the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice, if the sentence of rigorous
imprisonment of 2 years awarded to the petitioners is reduced to the period
already undergone by them.
13. Consequently, judgment dated 27.01.2011 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, confirming the conviction of the
petitioners is upheld, however, the order of sentence dated 08.07.2010 is
modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 2 years
awarded to the petitioners is reduced to the period of sentence already
undergone by them.
Consequently, the present revision is disposed of in the following
terms:-
(i) The judgment dated 27.01.2011 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur confirming the
conviction of the petitioners is upheld, however, the order
of sentence dated 08.07.2010 is modified to the extent that
the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 2 years along
with default mechanism awarded to the petitioners is
reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by
them.
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009070
CRR-282-2011 -7- 2024:PHHC:009070
(ii) The sentence of fine of an amount of Rs. 2000/-
(Rs.500/- for each of the offences the petitioners are
convicted for) imposed upon each of the petitioners by the
learned trial Court is increased to Rs.10,000/- each. The
petitioners are directed to deposit the amount of fine in the
trial Court within one month from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order and in case of default of
payment of fine, the petitioners shall be liable to be taken
into custody and made to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for one month.
14. In view of the above discussion, the present petitions are partially
allowed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed
of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
19.01.2024
Neha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009070
7 of 7
