Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pal Singh vs State Of Punjab on 3 September, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115383
CRR-323-2020 (O&M) -1-
267
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-323-2020 (O&M)
DECIDED ON: 03.09.2024
PAL SINGH
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. K.S. Sidhu, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Kartik Bansal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sukhsandesh Singh Chahal, AAG, Punjab.
*****
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. The present criminal revision petition has been preferred against
the judgment dated 22.01.2020 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala
whereby, the judgment dated 17.05.2016 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist
Class, Nabha has been set aside and the petitioner has been held guilty for
offence under Section 25 of Arms Act and thereafter convicted with rigorous
imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- also in default of
payment of fine, further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
2. At the very outset, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner
contends that he does not want to challenge the conviction of the petitioner
on merits. However, he submits that in view of the circumstances of this
case, the sentence awarded by the Appellant Court is on higher side.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115383
CRR-323-2020 (O&M) -2-
3. Here it would be pertinent to mention that the petitioner did not
challenge his conviction on merits and only confined his relief qua the
quantum of sentence. This Court has also scrutinized the impugned
judgment as well as the relevant documents/evidence and is of the
considered view that there is no scope of interference in the impugned
judgment as far as the conviction of the petitioner is concerned. As such, the
conviction of the petitioner is upheld but the fine amount has been enhanced
from Rs.2000/- to 10,000/-.
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 Appellant Court. Apart from the fact that the petitioner has already
suffered the agony of a protracted trial for a period almost five years, he is
the poor person and the sole bread winner for his family. The petitioner has
already undergone the actual sentence for a period of 01 month and 30 days
as of now, out of total sentence of one year. Thus, this court is of the
considered view that a chance be given to the petitioner to reform & improve
him; 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 the petitioner has not challenged his conviction on merits, while
affirming his conviction, the order of sentence is modified to the extent to
the period already undergone by him with enhancement of fine from
Rs.2000/- to Rs.10,000/-.
6. With the aforesaid modification in the quantum of sentence as
well as in the fine amount, the present criminal revision petition stands
disposed off.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:115383
CRR-323-2020 (O&M) -3-
7. The petitioner is ordered to be released forthwith in case he is
not required in any other case.
8. Pending criminal misc. application, if any shall also disposed
off.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
03.09.2024 JUDGE
Poonam Negi
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
