Balwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab

H.S. Grewal, J

This revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 9. 11.2009 passed by ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.12.2005 passed by ld. Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Jagraon was upheld whereby the petitioner was convicted as under :

Under Section 420 IPC

To undergo RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default thereof, he shall further undergo RI for three months

Under Section 468 IPC

To undergo RI for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof, he shall further undergo SI for six months

Under Section 471 IPC

To undergo RI for two years and to pay of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof, he shall further undergo SI for six months

All sentence were ordered to run concurrently.

2 The brief facts of the case are that a office note bearing no.962/8 dated 28.02.1997 was put up before SSP Jagraon in which it was reported that Balwinder Singh No.224/Jagraon has been working as Constable in the Police department since 10.11.1992, whose matriculation certificate was sent for checking vide letter no.2708/0.A.S.I dated 15.2.93 to the Secretary, Punjab School Education Board, which has been received back in this office on 20.01.1997 and after checking it had been reported that date of birth of Balwinder Singh is 01.02.1976 and not 01.02.1974. Secretary, Punjab School Education Board had also recommended for necessary action against the accused. After obtaining the legal opinion from the D.A., the present case was registered against the accused.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction on merits and restricts his prayer qua modification of the order on quantum of sentence. He also contends that the petitioner has already undergone custody for a period of 05 months and 22 days out of the awarded sentence of 02 years and stated that the petitioner is not involved in any other case. He prays that since FIR in question pertains to the year 1997, a lenient view may be taken while passing an order on quantum by this Court.

Learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the petitioner and filed the custody certificate in the Court, which is taken on record. He further submits that the Courts below has passed a well reasoned judgment based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. However, he does not refute the fact that the petitioner is not involved in any other case.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record.

The FIR in the present case pertains to the year 1997 and he has already faced the rigors of the trial for more than 28 years.

Hon’ble the Supreme Court in “Deo Narain Mandal Vs. State of UP”, (2004) 7 SCC 257, has held 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, the manner in which the offence is committed, age of the petitioner, 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 Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravada Sasikala Vs. State of AP, AIR 2017 SC 1166, has held 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 conduct of the accused to strike a balance between the efficacy of law and the chances of reformation of the accused.

A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the Courts below indicates no perversity in their findings and the same are based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has not assailed the judgments, rather restricted the prayer only qua modification of quantum of sentence to that of the sentence already undergone by the petitioner.

As far as the question of quantum of sentence in concerned, it is worthwhile to note that the occurrence in this case pertains to the year 1997. The right to speedy and expeditious trial is one of the most valuable and cherished rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The petitioner has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of more than 28 years and has been in the corridors of the court for this prolonged period. He remained incarcerated for 05 months and 22 days. In view of the facts noted above, the case of the petitioner deserves to be dealt with leniency. The petitioner also deserves the benefit of the consistent view taken by this court in this regard. Thus, guided by the judicial pronouncements made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Haripada Das Vs. State of West Bangal reported in (1998) 9 SCC 678 and Alister Anthony Pareira vs. [2023:RJ-JD:28174] (5 of 5) [CRLR-755/2003] State of Maharashtra reported in 2012 2 SCC 648 and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, age of petitioner, his status in the society and the fact that he faced financial hardship and had to go through mental agony, this court is of the view that ends of justice would be met, if sentence imposed upon the petitioner is reduced to the period as already undergone by him.

Accordingly, judgments passed by the ld. Appellate Court as well as ld. Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Jagraon are hereby affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded by the Courts concerned under Sections 420/468 and 471 IPC has been modified and reduced to the period of sentence as already undergone by him. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged. However, the amount of fine of Rs.1,000/- imposed upon the petitioner by the ld. Trial Court is enhanced to Rs. 5,000/-. The petitioner is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of fine in learned trial Court within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and in case of default of payment of fine, he will be liable to be taken into custody and made to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

With these modifications, the present revision petition is disposed of.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.