Crr No. 1674 of 2010 · Punjab And Haryana High Court · 2026

Present: Mr. M.S. Dhami, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Dhruv Dayal, Addl., A.G., Haryana. *** SUKHVINDER KAUR , J.

#1. By way of this revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 03.06.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ambala, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner, challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

21.04.2008 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala City, in case FIR No.174 dated 03.06.2000, under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC, registered at Police Station Baldev Nagar, Ambala was upheld.

#2. Brief facts of this case are that on 03.06.2000 due to the alleged rash and negligent driving by the petitioner of the Punjab Roadways bus bearing registration No.PB-12C-9111, death of Davinder Singh was caused. CRR-1674-2010 (O&M) 2 On the basis of the statement of the complainant Kulbir Singh, the present FIR was got registered against the petitioner. Upon trial, vide judgment and order of sentence dated 21.04.2008 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala City, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under:- Name of accused Under Section Sentence Baljinder Singh 279 IPC 304-A IPC To undergo R.I. for 03 months along with fine of Rs.500/- To undergo R.I. for one year along with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for 03 months.

#3. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner preferred appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ambala, but the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court was upheld by the said Court and appeal was dismissed vide order dated 03.06.2010.

#4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the judgment of conviction of the petitioner is not being assailed on merits and he restricts his prayer for modification of order on quantum of sentence.

#5. Per contra, learned counsel for the state submitted that the well reasoned judgment has been passed by both the Courts below based on correct appreciation of the evidence available on record and the petitioner does not deserve any leniency.

#6. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record has been meticulously examined with their able assistance. CRR-1674-2010 (O&M) 3

#7. Since the revisionist/ petitioner has not challenged the judgment of conviction on merits, as such the said issues are not being gone into at this stage and it is being restricted to the issue pertaining to sentencing and quantum of punishment.

#8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pramod Kumar Mishra Vs. State of UP (2023) 9 SCC 810, observed that punishment must not be viewed as an act of vengeance but as a means of reformation and reintegration of the offender into society. It was further held that an appropriate sentence must be determined by considering a range of factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offence, the offender’s background, age, mental and emotional condition, potential for rehabilitation, prior criminal record, and the deterrent needs of the community. Sentencing, the Court noted, involves a delicate exercise of judicial discretion where multiple social, psychological, and moral factors must be balanced to ensure that justice serves both societal protection and individual redemption.

#9. Hon'ble Supreme Court again reiterated in Ravada Sasikala v. State of AP reported as AIR 2017 SC 1166, that 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. In order to determine the quantum of sentence, Courts should bear in mind the principle of proportionality as awarding punishment is not merely retributive but also reformative. CRR-1674-2010 (O&M) 4

#10. The perusal of impugned judgment reveals that there is no perversity and evidence on record has been appreciated in the right perspective, but as observed above, the counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction on substantive grounds and while limiting his plea solely to modification of the quantum of sentence to one already undergone.

#11. Learned State counsel has produced the custody certificate of the petitioner, as per which the petitioner has already undergone custody of 02 months and 22 days including remission out of awarded substantive sentence of 01 year.

#12. Taking into consideration the facts noticed above that it was unfortunate purely accidental occurrence, that the petitioner has faced the rigors of a long criminal prosecution and in the facts and circumstances of the present case it would be in the interest of justice, if sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

#13. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, the present revision is disposed of in the following terms:- “The judgment dated 03.06.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ambala and judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.04.2008 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala City are upheld with modification to the extent that the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him.”

#14. The concerned jail authorities are directed to release the petitioner immediately, if not required in any other case.

#15. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. CRR-1674-2010 (O&M) 5

#16. Registry is directed to do the needful.

14.07.2026. Komal (SUKHVINDER KAUR) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether reportable? : : Yes/ No Yes/ No