Punjab-Haryana High Court
Om Parkash vs State Of Ut Chandigarh on 20 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040256
2024:PHHC:040256
245 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-169-2018
Date of decision: 20.03.2024
OM PARKASH
...PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF UT CHANDIGARH
...RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. S.S. Malik, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. J.S. Toor, Addl. P.P., UT Chandigarh.
****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (ORAL)
This revision has been preferred against the judgment dated
21.11.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, vide which,
judgment of conviction and order of quantum of sentence dated 05.11.2015
passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh in FIR No.453
dated 19.11.2012 filed under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC registered at
Police Station Sector 11, Chandigarh, has been upheld. The petitioner was
sentenced as under:
Offence Sentence
420 IPC RI for 03 years with a fine of
Rs.500/- in default of which, to
undergo for 10 days.
467 IPC RI for 03 years with a fine of
Rs.500/- in default of which, to
undergo for 10 days.
468 IPC RI for 03 years with a fine of
Rs.500/- in default of which, to
undergo for 10 days.
471 IPC RI for 02 years
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040256
CRR-169-2018 2 2024:PHHC:040256
2. In brief, version of the prosecution is that petitioner-Om Parkash
was appointed as Driver no.399 in CTU, vide office order bearing
no.6932/EAD/HOD/CTU/2010 dated 15.07.2010. His appointment was subject
to verification of documents submitted by him. His matriculation certificate
was sent to Director of National Institute of Open Schooling, New Delhi for
verification. The said authority informed the office of GM, CTU that the
matriculation certificate of Om Parkash (petitioner) bearing Sr. No.A/05
143583, AI no.050106 dated 18.06.2006/ original mark sheet bearing old
number 05010642243 was not issued by the said institute and therefore, was
not genuine. A complaint was moved by GM, CTU on the basis of which FIR
was registered. The petitioner was arrested. The documents were taken into
police possession. The IO recorded the statements of witnesses under section
161 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C) and
after completion of the investigation challan was presented before the court.
3. The petitioner was convicted vide judgement dated 05.11.2015 by
the learned trial Court which has also been upheld by lower Appellate Court
vide judgment dated 21.11.2017.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is not assailing
the impugned judgment of conviction dated 05.11.2015 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 01 year, 08 months and 04 days and is not involved in any other
criminal activity.
5. 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 also been
upheld by the learned lower Appellant Court and as such, he does not deserve
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040256
CRR-169-2018 3 2024:PHHC:040256
any leniency.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
with their able assistance.
7. 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.
8. A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial
Court indicates no perversity in its findings and the same is based on correct
appreciation of evidence available on record. Moreover, learned counsel for the
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040256
CRR-169-2018 4 2024:PHHC:040256
petitioner has not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits, rather he has
restricted his prayer only qua quantum of sentence.
9. The FIR in the present case was lodged on 19.11.2012 and the
petitioner has been suffering the agony of protracted trial for more than last 11
years. Since his conviction, the petitioner has grown into a law-abiding citizen
and desires to live a peaceful life. As per his custody certificate, he is not
involved in any other case and has undergone actual sentence of 01 year, 02
months and 16 days out of total sentence of 03 years, in the instant case.
10. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the
interest of justice, if the sentence awarded to the petitioner/appellant is reduced
to the period already undergone by him.
11. Consequently, the present appeal is disposed of in the following
terms:-
(i) The judgment dated 21.11.2017 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh affirming the judgment of
conviction is upheld, however, the order of sentence dated
05.11.2015 is modified to the extent that the sentence of rigorous
imprisonment for 03 years along with default mechanism 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.500/-
imposed upon the petitioner by the trial Court is increased to
Rs.10,000/-. 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.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040256
CRR-169-2018 5 2024:PHHC:040256
12. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
March 20, 2024 JUDGE
manisha
(i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
(ii) Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
