Punjab-Haryana High Court
Santosh Kumari vs Sunil Kumar & Anr on 17 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:036115
205 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR-973-2014 (O&M)
Date of decision: 17.03.2025
Santosh Kumari ....Petitioner
Versus
Sunil Kumar and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Sukhsharan Sra, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Kuldeep Sheoran, Advocate for
Mr. Ashish Pannu, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
1. The present revision petition is preferred against the judgment
dated 11.03.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon,
vide which judgment of conviction dated 04.04.2013 and order of sentence
dated 05.04.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gurgaon,
in complaint bearing No.5298 dated 12.05.2010 under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act titled as 'Sunil Kumar Vs. Santosh Kumari.'
2. The petitioner was convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st
Class, Gurgaon, vide judgment dated 04.04.2013 and was sentenced as
mentioned below:
Offence Sentence
Section 138 of the Negotiable To undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six
Instruments Act months along with compensation of Rs.11,00,000/-
and Rs.3,00,000/-. In default, of non payment,
further to undergo simple imprisonment for a period
of three months.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:036115
CRR-973-2014 (O&M) -2-
3. The petitioner preferred an appeal against judgment of conviction
dated 04.04.2013 and order of sentence dated 05.04.2013 which was also
dismissed by learned lower Appellate Court vide judgment dated 11.03.2014.
Being aggrieved with the same, present revision petition has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is not assailing
the impugned judgment of conviction dated 04.04.2013 on merits and restricts
his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence to that of the
sentence already undergone by the petitioner as has already undergone a period
of 05 months and 22 days and is not involved in any other criminal activity.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 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 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
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:036115
CRR-973-2014 (O&M) -3-
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.
8. 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.
9. 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits, rather he has restricted
his prayer only qua modification on quantum of sentence.
10. The complaint in the present case was filed on 12.05.2010 and the
petitioner has been suffering the agony of trial since the last more than 14
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 05 months and
22 days out of total sentence of six months in the instant case.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:036115
CRR-973-2014 (O&M) -4-
11. 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.
12. Consequently, the present revision petition is disposed of in the
following terms:-
(i) The judgment dated 11.03.2014 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, affirming the judgment
of conviction is upheld, however, the order of sentence dated
05.04.2013 is modified to the extent that the sentence of
simple imprisonment for six months along with default
mechanism awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period
of sentence already undergone by him.
13. However, the compensation as awarded by the learned trial Court
would remain intact and respondent No.1 would be at liberty to recover the
same in accordance with law.
14. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
17.03.2025
Neha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
