Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pippal Singh vs The Fazilka Central Cooperative Bank ... on 20 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:038497
CRR-3576-2017 (O&M) -1-
254 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
CHANDIGARH
CRR-3576-2017 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 20.03.2025
PIPPAL SINGH ...Petitioner
V/S
THE FAZILKA CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. AND
ANOTHER ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. A.K. Sama, Advocate
for the petitioner.
None for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Nitesh Sharma, DAG Punjab.
****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)
1. The present revision petition is preferred against the judgment
dated 19.07.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka vide
which judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence dated
31.08.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka have
been upheld, whereby, petitioner has been convicted and sentenced as
under:
Offence under Sentence Fine Sentence in
Section default of
payment of fine
138 of Rigorous Rs. 5,000/- Rigorous
Negotiable imprisonment for imprisonment for
Instruments one year one month
Act
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is not
assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 19.07.2017 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka on merits and restricts his prayer
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:038497
CRR-3576-2017 (O&M) -2-
to modification of the order on quantum of sentence dated 31.08.2016 to
that of sentence already undergone by the petitioner as he has already
undergone a period of more than 03 months out of total sentence of 01 year
imposed upon him.
3. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the
petitioner on the ground that learned trial Court has passed a well-reasoned
judgment based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record and
the said judgment has also been upheld by learned lower Appellate Court
and as such, he does not deserve any leniency.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record with their able assistance.
5. In Deo Narain Mandal v. 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 sen-
tence, 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 sen-
tence 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.
6. 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
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:038497
CRR-3576-2017 (O&M) -3-
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 oppor-
tunities of reformation must be granted and such discretion is to be exer-
cised 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.
7. A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned
trial Court indicates no perversity in its findings and the said judgment is
based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. Moreover,
learned counsel for the petitioner has not assailed the judgment of
conviction on merits, rather he has restricted his prayer only qua
modification of quantum of sentence.
8. The complaint in the present case was filed on 27.11.2012 and
the petitioner has been suffering the agony of trial since the last more than
12 years. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone total
sentence of 03 months and 28 days including remmission out of total sen-
tence of one year awarded to him.
9. 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.
10. Consequently, the present petition is disposed of in the
following terms:-
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:038497
CRR-3576-2017 (O&M) -4-
(i) The judgment of conviction dated 19.07.2017 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka is upheld, however,
the order of sentence dated 31.08.2016 is modified to the extent that
the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year awarded to the
petitioner is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by
him.
(ii) The fine imposed upon the appellant already stands
paid. Hence, no directions are required to be issued in this regard.
11. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
20.03.2025 JUDGE
Ajay Goswami
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
