PREM KUMAR v. Mr. Raj Karan Singh, AAG, Punjab

Judgment

#1. The present criminal revision petition has been preferred against judgment and order of sentence dated 25.03.2008 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bathinda and judgment dated

12.09.2008 dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Bathinda, whereby the petitioner was convicted under Section 409 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1½ years.

#2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was permanently employed as an Octroi Clerk under the Nagar Council, Bathinda. On

24.10.1995, while deployed at the Picket Dera Tap Naka, the petitioner was assigned receipt Book No.323 and on being relieved from his duty shift at 10.00 PM, he instead of depositing or transferring the book, took it at home. The petitioner had used some receipts from said book and not deposited the amount in the Nagar Council Fund and had embezzled an amount of Rs.59,793/-. Later, on 08.05.2006, the petitioner had admitted -1- 204 CRR No.1974 of 2008 (O&M) his guilt in writing and had deposited the aforesaid amount of Rs.59,793/- vide receipt No.45/107 dated 13.05.1996 with Nagar Council, Bathinda.

On 08.05.1996 he was suspended. Consequently, FIR No.283 dated

15.11.1999 was registered at Police Station Kotwali Bathinda under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code.

#3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, out of the substantive sentence awarded, the petitioner has already undergone incarceration for a period of 01 month and 13 days and has remained on bail pursuant to the order dated 24.10.2008 passed by this Court suspending his sentence during the pendency of the present revision petition. It is further submitted, on instructions, that having regard to the nature of the offence, the petitioner's clean antecedents, and the fact that he is not involved in any other criminal case, this Court may, while maintaining the conviction, reduce the substantive sentence to the period already undergone by him, subject to enhancement of the fine, in order to meet the ends of justice.

#4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate dated 08.07.2026 and has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has rightly been convicted based upon the evidence available on record and does not deserve any concession and prays that the present petition be dismissed on merits.

#5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

#6. Pursuant to the trial, the prosecution examined eight witnesses, whereafter the prosecution evidence was closed. The statement -2- 204 CRR No.1974 of 2008 (O&M) of the petitioner under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was thereafter recorded, wherein the petitioner pleaded innocence and asserted that he had been falsely implicated in the present case. He denied having embezzled any amount and contended that the then Executive Officer, in order to shield himself from liability, falsely implicated the petitioner in the present case and subsequently caused the embezzled amount to be deposited. However, the petitioner did not lead any evidence in defence.

#7. The perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the embezzlement is of the year 1995, the case was registered in the year 1999, challan was filed on 25.07.2000 and trial concluded on 25.03.2008. It has been observed by the Courts below that initially the petitioner denied all those allegations but as per evidence on record receipt book No.323 was issued to the petitioner and he did not deposit the amount till the embezzlement was detected on 30.04.1996. He deposited back the alleged embezzled amount only on 13.05.1996. It has also been observed by the Courts below that the petitioner had himself moved an application in writing, which is Ex.PB and the contents of the application are that on

24.10.1995 when his duty was over, he went back to his home keeping in view the stressed domestic conditions, the book No.323 kept lying with him and the day he realized the same, he immediately submitted back the same to the office though he has not denied issuance of receipt No.297 to 367 for Rs.59,793/- and had admitted that he could not deposit the amount in time and sought apology for the same. Even, during the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner prayed for leniency and as he was not enjoying good health and is physically handicapped, though, it is -3- 204 CRR No.1974 of 2008 (O&M) the admitted fact that the said embezzled amount had been deposited and the same has also been recorded in both the judgments.

#8. As per the record, the FIR was registered in the year 1999, the petitioner who is physically handicapped and is 71 years of age has undergone the ordeal of protracted criminal proceedings for more than 26 years.

#9. While considering the petitioner's prayer for reduction of sentence, this Court finds that the considerable lapse of time since the commission of the offence, coupled with the prolonged pendency of the proceedings, is a relevant mitigating circumstance. Further, during this period, as per learned State counsel, the petitioner has not been involved in any other criminal case and has maintained a clean record, indicating his reformation. Moreover, the offences are not so heinous as to disentitle him from the relief sought. Further, as per the custody certificate dated

08.07.2026, the petitioner has already undergone 01 month and 13 days of the substantive sentence out of the total sentence of 1½ years rigorous imprisonment. These factors deserve due weight while determining the alteration of sentence awarded by the trial Court.

#10. A similar issue came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Israfil @ Pappu @ Naimuddin Khan Versus State of Madhya Pradesh, 2026 INSC 654, wherein, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, including the long lapse of time and other mitigating factors, the sentence awarded to the accused was reduced. The ratio of the said decision lends support to the course being adopted in the present case. The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder: -4- 204 CRR No.1974 of 2008 (O&M) “23. This Court, in catena of cases before it, while maintaining conviction, had exercised its discretion and had reduced the substantive sentence considering long passage of time, absence of criminal antecedents and other mitigating circumstances. For instance, in Padum Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, while maintaining conviction for offences including Sections 467 and 468 of the IPC, this Court reduced sentence considering the age of the matter, the sentence already undergone and taking into account the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The long lapse of time without any material indicating repetition of similar criminal conduct is also a relevant consideration while moulding sentence. The appellant has already undergone the rigours of criminal proceedings for over a decade since 2014.”

#11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also recognized that prolonged criminal litigation is by itself a relevant mitigating circumstance while determining the appropriate sentence. Where an accused has lived for years, or even decades, under the shadow of criminal proceedings, facing the uncertainty of the outcome and the social stigma associated with such prosecution, the said experience constitutes a significant factor that deserves to be taken into account while moulding the sentence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed that such a principle is particularly applicable in cases involving non-heinous offences, where the ends of justice can be adequately served by adopting a reformative and proportionate approach to sentencing rather than a purely retributive one.

#12. Given the above discussion, the present criminal revision petition is accordingly partly allowed and the jail sentence as awarded by -5- 204 CRR No.1974 of 2008 (O&M) the Courts below is altered to the extent that the same is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner, subject to deposit of enhanced fine of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited with the trial Court concerned within a period of two months from today.

#13. Bail bonds/surety bonds furnished by the petitioner stand discharged.

#14. It is clarified that in case the aforesaid fine amount is not deposited within the stipulated period, the same would result in reviving the jail sentence awarded by the Courts below and the petitioner will have to then undergo the remaining jail sentence.

#15. The pending miscellaneous application, if any, is also disposed of as such.

09.07.2026 ‘Sandeep’ (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether Reportable: Yes Yes No No -6-