##PAGE1##

CRR-1682-2013 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

230 CRR-1682-2013 Date of Decision: 07.04.2026

HARPAL SINGH ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL

Present:- Ms. G.K.Mann, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shruti, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rohit Hans, DAG, Punjab.

H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral)

1. This revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 08.05.2013 passed by ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.12.20209 passed by ld. JMIC, Ludhiana was upheld whereby the petitioner was convicted under Sections 406 and 420 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to further undergo

simple imprisonment for 15 days.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner came to the office of complainant and told him that he can send Jagdish Singh to Canada. In this regard, the petitioner allegedly demanded a sum of ₹8,00,000/-, out of which an amount of ₹2,00,000/- was paid in advance. However, the petitioner failed to fulfill his promise of sending Jagdish Singh abroad. Upon persistent demands made by the complainant for refund, the petitioner returned a sum of ₹40,000/- and executed a pronote for the remaining amount of ₹1,60,000/-. Despite this, the petitioner failed

RENU RAWAT

2026.04.10 17.10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRR-1682-2013 -2-

to pay back remaining amount and rather extended threats to the complainant. Consequently, the present FIR was registered under Sections 420 and 406 of the

IPC. .

2. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner contends that she is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction on merits and restricts her prayer qua modification of the order on quantum of sentence. She further submits that pronote itself states Rs. 1,60,000/- i.e. half of which is Rs. 80,000/- given for agriculture expenses from Bhola son of Lal Singh son of not known @ 2% interest per month. She also contends that the petitioner has undergone custody for a period of 04 months and 25 days out of the awarded sentence and that the petitioner is not involved in any other case. She prays that since FIR in question pertains to the year 2002, a lenient view may be taken while passing an order on

quantum by this Court.

3. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the petitioner and has filed the custody certificate in the Court, which is taken on record. He further submits that the Courts below have passed well reasoned judgments based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. However, he does not refute

the fact that the petitioner is not involved in any other case.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through

the material placed on record.

5. The FIR in the present case pertains to the year 2002 and the

petitioner has already faced the rigors of the trial for more than 23 years.

6. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in “Deo Narain Mandal Vs. State of UP”, (2004) 7 SCC 257, has held 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

RENU RAWAT

2026.04.10 17.10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRR-1682-2013 -3-

in the Court. Background of each case, which includes factors like gravity of the offence, the manner in which the offence is committed, age of the petitioner, 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.

7. Further, a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court