Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.
Kulwant Kaur And Another – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRM-42920-2024 in/and CRR-2127-2024 (O&M) and CRM-27782-2024 in/and CRR-1309-2024 (O&M)
Decided on : 29-01-2025
JUDGMENT :
Harpreet Singh Brar, J. (Oral)
CRM-42920-2024 & CRM-27782-2024
For the reasons mentioned in the applications, the same are allowed.
Delay of 355 days and 218 days in filing both the revision petitions is hereby condoned.
MAIN CASES
1. This common judgment of mine shall dispose of both the above-mentioned criminal revisions as they arise out of the common FIR. For the sake of brevity, facts are borrowed from CRR-2127-2024 titled as Kulwant Kaur and another vs. State of Punjab.
2. These revision petitions have been preferred against the judgment dated 04.09.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, vide which, judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence dated 31.10.2017 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala in case bearing FIR No. 212 dated 08.09.2012 registered under Sections 420/193/200/468/465/471/120-B IPC at Police Station City Kapurthala have been upheld.
3. The petitioners were sentenced as under:
Petitioner's name | Offence under Section(s) | Sentence |
Mela Singh | 120-B IPC | RI for 03 years |
420 IPC | RI for 03 years with a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo RI for 02 days. | |
193 IPC | RI for 03 years with a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo RI for 02 days. | |
200 IPC | RI for 03 years with a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo RI for 02 days. | |
465 IPC | RI for 02 years with a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo RI for 02 days. | |
468 IPC | RI for 02 years with a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo RI for 02 days. | |
471 IPC | RI for 03 years with a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo RI for 02 days. | |
Kulwant Kaur | 120-B IPC | RI for 03 years |
420 IPC | RI for 03 years with a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo RI for 02 days. | |
193 IPC | RI for 03 years with a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo RI for 02 days. | |
Kulwant Kaur | 200 IPC | RI for 03 years with a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo RI for 02 days. |
465 IPC | RI for 02 years with a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo RI for 02 days. | |
468 IPC | RI for 02 years with a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo RI for 02 days. | |
471 IPC | RI for 03 years with a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo RI for 02 days. | |
Manjit Singh | 120-B IPC | RI for 03 years |
420 IPC | RI for 03 years with a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo RI for 02 days. | |
193 IPC | RI for 03 years with a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo RI for 02 days. | |
200 IPC | RI for 03 years with a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo RI for 02 days. | |
465 IPC | RI for 02 years with a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo RI for 02 days. | |
468 IPC | RI for 02 years with a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo RI for 02 days. | |
471 IPC | RI for 03 years with a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo RI for 02 days. | |
It was ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently. | ||
4. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that accused persons, namely Kulwant Kaur and Mela Singh, in connivance with each other, filed applications for exemption from personal appearance of accused Manjit Singh, on various dates of hearing before the trial Court in case bearing FIR No. 105 dated 06.09.2009 under Sections 420/120-B IPC at Police Station Bholath, Kapurthala, despite having knowledge of the fact that accused Manjit Singh has moved to Dubai UAE. Hence, FIR (supra) was registered.
5. The petitioners were convicted and sentenced vide judgment and order dated 31.10.2017 passed by learned trial Court, which has also been upheld by learned lower Appellate Court vide judgment dated 04.09.2023.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 04.09.2023 on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence to that of the sentence already undergone by the petitioners. Petitioner-Kulwant Kaur has undergone a total period of 09 months and 22 days, including remission and custody after conviction. Petitioner-Manjit Singh has undergone a total period of 05 months and 02 days, including remission and custody after conviction. Petitioner-Mela Singh has undergone a
The court modified the sentence from one year to the period already undergone, emphasizing the importance of proportionality and individual circumstances in sentencing.
Sentencing under Section 138 of the NI Act must balance retribution and reformation, allowing modification based on the accused's conduct and time served.
Judicial discretion in sentencing allows for reduction based on time served when no minimum penalty exists, balancing justice and reformation.
The court found that considerations of time served and rehabilitation justified the modification of the sentence in favor of the appellants.
The court has the discretion to consider the period already undergone by the accused when deciding on the appropriate sentence, based on the principles of sentencing policy and precedent laws.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
