Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rohtash Singh vs State Of Haryana on 29 January, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:014249
2024:PHHC:014249
CRR-534-2010 1
240(2) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-534-2010
Date of Decision: January 29, 2024
ROHTASH ........Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA ........Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Rajesh Duhan, Legal Aid Counsel with
Mr. Rohtash, petitioner in person.
Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG Punjab
****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
1. This revision has been preferred against the judgment dated
03.02.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani vide which
judgment of conviction dated 19.12.2006 passed by the learned Sub Divisional
Judicial Magistrate, Loharu in FIR No. 89 dated 26.05.1997 under Sections
420, 409 of the IPC registered at Police Station Behal, Bhiwani was upheld.
However, the order of quantum of sentence dated 22.12.2006 was modified by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani. The petitioner was sentenced
as under: -
Offence Sentence
Section 409 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and a fine of Rs.
1500/-, in default of which rigorous imprisonment of 1
month.
Section 420 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 2.5 years and a fine of Rs.
1000/-, in default of which rigorous imprisonment of 1
month.
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:014249
2024:PHHC:014249
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. The facts, in brief, are that the FIR was registered on 1.11.1999 on
the basis of a written complaint presented by the Manager, Punjab National
Bank, Behal, wherein it was alleged that the petitioner while working as a
clerk-cum-cashier in the said bank, from June, 1996 to February, 1997,
embezzled Rs. 4,93,100/- entrusted to him by the customers for the purpose of
crediting the aforesaid amount in their respective accounts. The petitioner used
to issue receipts and make entries in the passbooks of the depositors but did not
deposit the amount in the bank. Instead, the petitioner misappropriated the said
amount for his own use. The offence came to light when the balances of Saving
Fund Ledger and Principal Books of the bank were tallied. It was learnt that the
petitioner authenticated bogus entries in Saving Fund Account Ledger.
3. On being charged under Section 409 of the IPC, vide order dated
07.04.1998 by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Loharu, the
petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Subsequently, the charge was
altered to include Section 420 IPC vide order dated 07.08.2003.
4. The prosecution examined as many as 21 witnesses to prove its
case. Subsequently, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure was recorded, wherein the petitioner pleaded false
implication. In defence, the petitioner examined as many as 2 witnesses to
prove his innocence.
5. On the basis of evidence led, the petitioner was convicted by the
learned trial Court vide judgment dated 19.12.2006. Aggrieved by the same,
the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Lower Appellate Court. While the
conviction was upheld, the order of quantum of sentence was modified to the
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:014249
2024:PHHC:014249
effect that the period of detention during the pendency of the case was ordered
to be set-off from the sentence passed by the learned trial Court.
CONTENTIONS
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is not assailing
the impugned judgment of conviction dated 19.12.2006 on merits and restricts
his prayer to modification of the order of quantum of sentence to that of the
sentence already undergone by the petitioner as he has already undergone a
period of 2 years 08 months 22 days in custody. Furthermore, no other case is
pending against him.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
petitioner has reformed and intends to live his life as a law-abiding citizen.
8. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the
petitioner 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, and as such, he does not deserve any
leniency. Moreover, the learned State counsel contends that the petitioner has
been convicted in another case.
OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSIS
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-
book with their able assistance.
10. 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
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:014249
2024:PHHC:014249
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 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.
11. As per the custody certificate produced by the learned State
counsel, details of custody period of the petitioner are tabulated as under: -
Sr Particulars Period Duration
No.
1. Custody under trial 12/11/1997 to 2 years 07 months
13/06/2000 2 days
2. Custody after conviction 01/04/2010 to 1 month 20 days
20/05/2010
3. Interim bail - -
4. Actual custody period after 01/04/2010 to 1 month 20 days
conviction 20/05/2010
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:014249
2024:PHHC:014249
5. Actual undergone period 12/11/1997 to 2 years 08 months
13/06/2000 22 days
and 01/04/2010 to
20/05/2010
6. Earned remission - -
7. Total sentence including 12/11/1997 to 2 years 08 months
remission 13/06/2000 22 days
and 01/04/2010 to
20/05/2010
12. A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court
and the Lower Appellate Court indicates no perversity in their finding and the
same are based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record.
Counsel for the petitioner has not assailed the judgment of conviction on
merits, rather he has restricted his prayer only qua quantum of sentence.
CONCLUSION
13. The FIR in the present case was lodged on 26.05.1997 and the
case was instituted in the trial Court on 24.01.1998. The petitioner has faced
the agony of a protracted trial, which has lasted for approximately 26 years.
Since his conviction in the two cases, which arise from the same set of
circumstances, the petitioner has grown into a law-abiding citizen and desires
to live a peaceful life. As per his custody certificate, there are no other criminal
cases pending against him. Out of the total sentence of 3 years under Section
409 IPC, and two and half years under Section 420 IPC, the petitioner has
undergone actual sentence of 2 years 8 months and 22 days. Accordingly, 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.
14. Consequently, the present revision is disposed of in the following
terms: -
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:014249
2024:PHHC:014249
i The judgment dated 03.02.2010 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani confirming the
conviction of the petitioner is upheld, however, the order
of sentence dated 22.12.2006 is modified to the extent
that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 3 years
under Section 409 IPC, and two and half years under
Section 420 IPC (to run concurrently) awarded to the
petitioner is reduced to the period of sentence already
undergone by him.
ii The sentence of fine of an amount of Rs. 2500/- imposed
upon the petitioners by the trial Court is increased to
Rs.5,000/-. The petitioner is 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 petitioner shall be
liable to be taken into custody and made to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for one month.
15. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
29.01.2024
Ajay Goswami
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:014249
6 of 6
