282 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 04.03.2025 JARNAIL SINGH …Petitioner V/S U.T. CHANDIGARH AND ANOTHER …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. H.R. Bhardwaj, Advocate and Mr. Suraj Kaundal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Shashank Bhandari, Addl. PP UT Chandigarh for Mr. Amit Kumar Goyal, Addl. PP UT Chandigarh.

Mr. Amit Singh Barnala, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

1. The present revision petition is preferred against the judgment dated 26.07.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh vide which judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence dated 23.08.2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh have been upheld, whereby, petitioner has been convicted and sentenced as under:

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is not assail-

ing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 26.07.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh on merits and restricts his prayer to modification of the order on quantum of sentence dated 23.08.2006 to that of sentence already undergone by the petitioner as he has already undergone a period of 02 months and 11 days out of total sentence of 01 year imposed upon him and not involved in any other case.

3. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that learned trial Court has passed a well-reasoned judgment based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record and the said judgment has also been upheld by learned lower Appellate Court and as such, he does not deserve any leniency. However, he could not controvert the fact that the petitioner is not involved in any other case.

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

5. 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 sen- tence, 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 determ- ining 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 sen-

tence is neither excessively harsh nor does it come across as lenient.

6. 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 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 the conduct of the accused to strike a balance between the efficacy of law and the chances of reformation of the accused.

7. A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court indicates no perversity in its findings and the said judgment is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioner has not assailed the judgment of conviction on merits, rather he has restricted his prayer only qua modification of quantum of sentence.

8. The complaint in the present ca