205 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 17.03.2025 Santosh Kumari ....Petitioner Versus Sunil Kumar and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Sukhsharan Sra, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Kuldeep Sheoran, Advocate for Mr. Ashish Pannu, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The present revision petition is preferred against the judgment dated 11.03.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, vide which judgment of conviction dated 04.04.2013 and order of sentence dated 05.04.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Gurgaon, in complaint bearing No.5298 dated 12.05.2010 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act titled as ‘Sunil Kumar Vs. Santosh Kumari.’

2. The petitioner was convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Gurgaon, vide judgment dated 04.04.2013 and was sentenced as mentioned below:

3. The petitioner preferred an appeal against judgment of conviction dated 04.04.2013 and order of sentence dated 05.04.2013 which was also dismissed by learned lower Appellate Court vide judgment dated 11.03.2014.

Being aggrieved with the same, present revision petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 04.04.2013 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 and 22 days and is not involved in any other criminal activity.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 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 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.

9. A perusal of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court indicates