Rupinder Singh vs State Of Punjab
2024 Latest Caselaw 662 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Rupinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 12 January, 2024

                                                    Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:006739




                                                     2024:PHHC:006739
CRR-215-2011                                                                1
307   IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH
                                                CRR-215-2011
                            Date of Decision: January 12, 2024

Rupinder Singh                                                ........Petitioner

                                Versus

State of Punjab
                                                           ........Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present:    Mr. Parminder Singh I, Advocate
            for the petitioner

            Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG Punjab
                                ****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. This revision has been preferred against the judgment dated

10.01.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur vide which

judgment of conviction and order of quantum of sentence dated 18.09.2007

passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur in FIR No. 71 dated

22.02.2003 under Sections 471, 468, 420 of the IPC registered at Police

Station Kotwali Sangrur was partly upheld and conviction under sections

420 and 471 IPC was sustained. The order of quantum of sentence dated

18.09.2007 was modified. The petitioner was sentenced as under: -

 Offence                Sentence

 Section 420 IPC        Rigorous imprisonment of 2 years and a fine of Rs.

250/-, in default of which rigorous imprisonment for 15 days.

Section 471 IPC Rigorous imprisonment of 1 year.

1 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:006739

2024:PHHC:006739

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner made an application

to Food Corporation of India (FCI) requesting his appointment on

compassionate grounds on account of death of his father. The appointment

was offered to him on the condition that the petitioner would have to

complete the minimum qualification of Graduation within a period of 2

years after his joining the employment. Later on, the petitioner submitted

his joining report, which included two certificates to show that the

petitioner had passed B.A. Part - I and B.A. Part - II examinations. The

two certificates were sent to Assistant Registrar, Garhwal University,

Srinagar for verification, when it was learnt that the certificates so sent

were forged. Consequently, District Manager, Food Corporation of India

made a written complaint to Senior Superintendent of police, Sangrur for

registration of a case. The complaint was referred to SHO, Police Station,

City, Sangrur which led to the registration of the FIR.

3. The prosecution examined as many as 5 witnesses to prove its case.

The learned trial court also summoned a witness. The petitioner pleaded

false implication and claimed trial, however, no evidence was led by him in

his defence.

4. Accordingly, the petitioner was convicted by the learned trial Court

vide judgment dated 18.09.2007. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner

preferred an appeal before the lower appellate Court, which was partly

dismissed vide judgment dated 10.01.2011, while the conviction and

quantum of sentence under Sections 420 and 471 were upheld, conviction

under section 468 was struck down.

2 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:006739

2024:PHHC:006739

CONTENTIONS

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is not

assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 18.09.2007 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 months 2 days of custody. Furthermore, no other

case is pending against him.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the

petitioner's trial took more than 20 years. Further, he has reformed and

intends to live his life as a law-abiding citizen.

7. 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 mostly upheld by the learned lower appellate Court, and as such, he

does not deserve any leniency.

ANALYSIS AND OBSERVATIONS

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,

3 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:006739

2024:PHHC:006739

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.

10. 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                 06/03/2003 to         9 days
                                             15/03/2003
 2.      Custody after conviction            10/01/2011 to         1 month 23 days
                                             04/03/2011
 3.      Interim bail                        -                                -

 4.      Actual custody period after 10/01/2011 to                 1 month 23 days
         conviction                  04/03/2011
 5.      Actual undergone period     06/03/2003 to                 2 months 2 days
                                     15/03/2003

                                    4 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:006739

2024:PHHC:006739

and 10/01/2011 to 04/03/2011

6. Earned remission - -

7. Total sentence including 06/03/2003 to 2 months 2 days remission 15/03/2003 and 10/01/2011 to 04/03/2011

11. 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 petitioners has not assailed the

judgment of conviction on merits, rather he has restricted his prayer only

qua quantum of sentence.

CONCLUSION

12. The FIR in the present case was lodged on 22.02.2003 and

since his conviction, the petitioner has grown into a law-abiding citizen and

desires to live a peaceful life. He is not involved in any other criminal

activity after his conviction in the present case and during the pendency of

the present revision. As per his custody certificate, there are no other

criminal cases pending against him. Out of the total sentence of 2 years, he

has undergone actual sentence of 2 months 2 days. 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 petitioner is reduced to

the period already undergone by him.

13. Consequently, the present revision is disposed of in the

following terms:-

5 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:006739

2024:PHHC:006739

i The judgment dated 10.01.2011 passed by the

Sessions Judge, Sangrur confirming the conviction of

the petitioner is upheld, however, the order of

sentence dated 18.09.2007 is modified to the extent

that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 2 years

and 1 year (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. 250/-

imposed upon the petitioners by the trial Court is

increased to Rs.10,000/-. The petitioner is directed to

deposit the increased 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.

14. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand

disposed of.

                                                (HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
                                                      JUDGE

12.01.2024
Ajay Goswami


                        Whether speaking/reasoned            Yes/No
                          Whether Reportable                 Yes/No

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:006739

6 of 6