225 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 08.04.2026 IQBAL SINGH & ANOTHER ... PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. A.S.Khinda, Advocate and Ms. Kamaldeep Kaur, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel)

for the petitioner.

Mr. Rohit Hans, D.A.G., Punjab.

H.S. GREWAL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present revision has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.08.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amritsar and judgment dated 27.02.2012 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Amritsar whereby the petitioners were convicted and sentenced to undergo as under:-

Charge: Under Sections 467, 468, 471, 423 IPC Sentence: To undergo rigorous imprisonment as under:

(a) To undergo RI for a period of two years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months under Section 467 IPC.

(b) To undergo RI for a period of two years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months under Section 468 IPC. (c) To undergo RI for a period of one year and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month under Section 471 IPC.

(d) To undergo RI for a period of two years under Section 423 IPC.

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the FIR was registered at the instance of the complainant, Mohan Singh, alleging that the petitioners, along with co-accused, fraudulently sold his property by falsely declaring him dead. Initially, petitioner No. 1 transferred the property to petitioner No. 2, who subsequently sold it to Mamta Verma. Thereafter, the property was transferred to her husband, Ashwani Verma. It is further alleged that the petitioners and co-accused also demolished the said property.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that he is not assailing the impugned judgment of conviction on merits and restricts his prayer qua modification of the order on quantum of sentence. He also contends that the petitioner No.1 was 50 years of age and petitioner No.2 was 48 years of age at the time of the incident and more than two decades have passed since they are facing the rigors of trial. They have already undergone custody for a period of 08 months and 21 days out of the awarded sentence of two years. He prays that since the occurrence is of the year 2004, a lenient view may be taken while passing an order on quantum by this Court.

4. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the petitioners and has filed the custody certificates in the Court, which are taken on record. He further submits that the learned trial Court and the Appellate Court have passed well reasoned judgments based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record.

6. The FIR in the present case pertains to the year 2004 and the petitioners have already faced the rigors of the trial for more than 21 years.

7. 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 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.

8. Further, a Di