##PAGE1## ##PAGE2##

2

119 (2 cases) CRR-2319-2025(O&M);

CRR-2422-2025 (O&M)

Offence charged with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC

Convicted under: Section 420 read with 511,468, 471 IPC

Sentence imposed Section 420, read with 511 IPC: One year

simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/-.

Default sentence: 7 days simple

imprisonment

Section 468 IPC: Two years simple

imprisonments and fine of Rs.3000/-

Default sentence: 10 days simple

imprisonment

Section 471 IPC: One year simple

imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/-

Default sentence: 7 days simple

imprisonment

Name of convict: Shamsher S/o Mansha Ram

Date of Arrest: 31.07.2016

Date of release on Bail 26.09.2016

Offence charged with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC

Convicted under: Section 420 read with 511,468, 471 IPC

Sentence imposed Section 420, read with 511 IPC: One year

simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/-.

Default sentence: 7 days simple

imprisonment

Section 468 IPC: Two years simple

imprisonments and fine of Rs.3000/-

Default sentence: 10 days simple

imprisonment

Section 471 IPC: One year simple

imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/-

Default sentence: 7 days simple

imprisonment

3. The facts of the case , in brief, are that on 23.07.2015, ASI

Harpal Singh received a complaint from Sajjan Singh, Clerk, Horticulture

Department, pursuant to letter no. 311 dated 22.07.2015. It was reported that

while working in Village Saiman, Meham, the Department found that two

persons – Pawan and Raghubir had applied for carnation flowers and sought

financial assistance of Rs.10.28 lakhs. They submitted individual bills

amounting to Rs.9.51 lakhs.

4. During scrutiny, it was revealed that no firm had issued any

invoice corresponding to the bills submitted, nor had any firm certified the

work claimed by the agriculturists. It was, therefore, opined that both

applicants had committed fraud with the Horticulture Department by

preparing false documents with an intention of misappropriating subsidy

SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN

2025.12.22 18:47

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

##PAGE3## ##PAGE4## ##PAGE5## ##PAGE6## ##PAGE7## ##PAGE8## ##PAGE9##

9

119 (2 cases) CRR-2319-2025(O&M);

CRR-2422-2025 (O&M)

was planned and committed, the motive for commission

of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of

weapons used and all other attending circumstances are

relevant facts which would enter into the area of

consideration.

Relying upon the decision of this Court in Sevaka

Perumal vs. State of T.N. [(1991) 3 SCC 471], this Court

furthermore held that it was the duty of every court to

award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the

offence and the manner in which it was executed or

committed etc.

xxx

18. Don M. Gottfredson in his essay on "Sentencing

Guidelines" in "Sentencing by Hyman Gross and Andrew

von Hirsch" opines:

"It is a common claim in the literature of criminal justice

and indeed in the popular press that there is considerable

"disparity" in sentencing. The word "disparity" has

become a prerogative and the concept of "sentencing

disparity" now carries with it the connotation of biased

or insidious practices on the part of the judges. This is

unfortunate in that much otherwise valid criticism has

failed to separate justified variation from the unjustified

variation referred to as disparity. The phrase

"unwarranted disparity" may be preferred; not all

sentencing variation should be considered unwarranted

or disparate. Much of it properly reflects varying degrees

of seriousness in the offense and/or varying

characteristics of the offender. Dispositional variation

that is based upon permissible, rationally relevant and

understandably distinctive characteristics of the offender

and of the offense may be wholly justified, beneficial and

proper, so long as the variable qualities are carefully

SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN monitored for consistency and desirability over time.

2025.12.22 18:47

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

##PAGE10##

10

119 (2 cases) CRR-2319-2025(O&M);

CRR-2422-2025 (O&M)

Moreover, since no two offenses or offenders are

ident

Click Here to Read the rest of this document