IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

241 CRR-288-2012 (O&M)

Date of decision: 24.09.2025 RAJINDER SINGH ...Petitioner Versus KULJIT KAUR …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ PRESENT :- Mr. Naresh Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.

None for the respondent.

******

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ. J. (ORAL)

The present revision petition has been preferred against the judgment of dated 01.08.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.07.2010 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Bathinda, was upheld.

2. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that he does not wish to press the present revision petition on merits and confines his prayer only to the extent of punishment and prays that the sentence awarded to the petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone by him in view of the mitigating circumstances.

3. He contends that the incident in question pertains to the year 2008. It is also borne out from a perusal of the case file that the matter essentially arises out of a dispute pertaining to proceedings instituted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

4. It is submitted that the petitioner was working as government teacher and was about 42 years old in the year 2008. A period of nearly 17 years has elapsed since the commission of the offence. It is submitted that the petitioner was not involved in any other criminal case either prior to the aforesaid incident or even thereafter. Petitioner has moved on in his life and is now well settled after overcoming the minor dispute. The very fact that he has not been involved in any other criminal case during a period of nearly 17 years despite his sentence being suspended shows that the petitioners has shown marked improvement in his conduct and has resorted to peaceful means. It is submitted that compelling the petitioner to undergo the remaining sentence at this stage would unsettle his family. He also submits that the petitioner has also undergone the agony of trial for a period of nearly 17 years.

5. No other argument has been raised by either of the counsel appearing. No judgment has also been cited.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents available on record.

7. The object of punishment is not only to punish but also to rehabilitate the offenders in society. Where an accused reflects a strong possibility of improvement and reformative behaviour, the process of law should come to the aid of such an accused so as to ensure his reintegration into society.

PARAMETERS AND PRINCIPLES OF SENTENCING:

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down certain principles to govern the Courts in the matter of sentencing. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab Vs. PremSagar&Ors (2008) 7 SCC 550.The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow: -

5. 'Whether the Court while awarding a sentence would take recourse to the principle of deterrence or reform or invoke the doctrine of proportionality, would no doubt depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.While doing so, however, the nature of the offence said to have been committed by the accused plays an important role. The offences which affect public health must be dealt with severely. For the said purpose, the courts must notice the object for enacting Article 47 of the Constitution of India.

6. There are certain offences which touch our social fabric. We must remind ourselves that even while introducing the doctrine of plea bargaining in the Code of Criminal Procedure, certain types of offences had been kept out of the purview thereof. While imposing sentences, the said principles should be borne in mind.

7. A sentence is a judgment on conviction of a crime. It is r