238 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 25.02.2025 Om Kumar @ Om Parkash ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. S.K. Panwar, Addl.A.G., Haryana.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 09.01.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, vide which judgment of conviction dated 16.09.2009 and order on quantum of sentence dated 18.09.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Hisar, in FIR No.961 dated 28.08.1997 under Sections 420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’), registered at Police Station Sadar, Hisar, have been partly upheld.

2. The petitioner was convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Hisar vide judgment dated 16.09.2009 and was sentenced as mentioned below:

It was ordered that both sentences shall run concurrently.

3. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 16.09.2009 and the order of sentence dated 18.09.2009 before the learned Appellate Court and the same was partly allowed. The order of sentence dated 18.09.2009 was modified to the extent that the conviction of the petitioner under Section 474 of IPC was found to be unsustainable. Consequently, the sentence imposed upon the petitioner was set aside and the petitioner was acquitted under the said Section. Additionally, the fine of Rs.1,000/- paid by the petitioner under Section 474 of the IPC was directed to be refunded. However, the judgment of conviction dated 16.09.2009 and the order of sentence dated 18.09.2009 qua the offence under Section 471 of IPC was upheld. Being aggrieved with the same, the present revision petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 16.09.2009 on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence to that of the sentence already undergone by the petitioner as has already undergone a period of 05 months 26 days and is not involved in any other criminal activity.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the petitioner as the learned trial Court has passed a well-reasoned judgment based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record which has also been upheld by the learned lower Appellant Court and as such, he does not deserve any leniency.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

7. In Deo Narain Mandal v. State 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 sentence, 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 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.

8. 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 imposition of sentence also serves a social purpose as it acts as a deterrent by making the accused realise