Hon’ble Mrs. Ranjana Pandya, J.—This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 22.7.1987 passed by the learned VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 1985 arising out of Criminal Case No. 408 of 1984 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Khurja dated 9.1.1985 convicting the applicant under Sections 500/211 IPC and sentencing him to undergo 6 months’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- on each count.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 16.5.1984, the complainant filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate-II, Khurja with the allegation that the revisionist with intention of causing loss to the complainant and defaming him maliciously lodged a false report at the police station Pahasu on 1.5.1984. On the basis of this report, case punishable under Section 392 IPC was registered at the police station. After investigation of the case, the police found the case to be false. The complainant was put to great harassment and to defamation, hence he filed a complaint. The statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and in inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. the statement of Basudeo was recorded. The learned Magistrate later on summoned the revisionist. After taking all the evidence in support, the Magistrate convicted the revisionist for six months’ imprisonment under Section 500 IPC and a fine to the tune of Rs. 1000/- with defaulting clause and six months’ imprisonment under Section 211 IPC coupled with fine to the tune of Rs. 1000/- with defaulting clause. He further ordered that in case the fine is recovered Rs. 1000/- to be paid to the complainant Ram Autar as damages. Feeling aggrieved the accused revisionist filed an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 1985, which was dismissed on 22.7.1987. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred the present revision.

3. I have heard Shri Mohit Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA for the State.

4. There are two judgments of both the Courts below arriving at the conclusion that the accused-revisionist committed the offence. The appeal was also dismissed by the Appellate Court.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that the proceedings are pending since long, hence the sentence be reduced.

6. As far as reduction of sentence is concerned, this Court cannot loose sight of the fact that the Apex Court is now and again not justifying the reduction of sentence awarded to the accused persons in heinous offences. The Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down that the cardinal principle of sentencing policy is that the sentence imposed on an offender should reflect the crime he has committed and it should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. This Court has repeatedly stressed the central role of proportionality in sentencing of offenders in numerous cases.

7. The factual matrix of this case is similar to the facts and circumstances of the case in Shailesh Jasvantbhai and another v. State of Gujarat and others, (2006) 2 SCC 359, wherein the accused was convicted under Section 307/114 IPC and for the same the trial Court sentenced the accused for 10 years. However, the High Court, in its appellate jurisdiction, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. In this case, this Court held that the sentence imposed is not proportionate to the offence committed, hence not sustainable in the eyes of law. This Court, observed thus:

“7. The law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims and demands. Security of persons and property of the people is an essential function of the State. It could beachieved through instrumentality of criminal law. Undoubtedly, there is a cross-cultural conflict where living law must find answer to the new challenges and the Courts are required to mould the sentencing system to meet the challenges. The contagion of lawlessness would undermine social order and lay it in ruins. Protection o