Crr No. 2873 of 2010 · Punjab And Haryana High Court · 2026

Present: Mr. Anuj Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Balram Singh, Advocate (Amicus Curiae) for the petitioners. Mr. Navdeep Singh, DAG, Punjab. *** SUKHVINDER KAUR , J.

#1. By way of this revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 08.10.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner, challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.02.2008 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga, in case FIR No.44 dated

18.04.2002, under Sections 170, 419, 420, 389, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar, Moga, was dismissed.

#2. Brief facts of present case are that on 18.04.2002, when Inspector Baldev Singh and other police officials was on patrolling duty, he received a secret information that Tajpal Singh and Kuljit Singh were CRR-2873-2010 (O&M) 2 roaming around in District Moga for the last two days on Indica Car bearing registration No.DL-9CC-1587 and they were extorting money from the drivers of rucks and canters by posing themselves DTO after threatening them to challan their vehicles and when raid was conducted, both accused, namely, Tejpal Singh and Kuljit Singh were apprehended with recovery of currency notes of Rs.2,550/- along with licence from accused Tejpal Singh and recovery of currency notes of Rs.1,450/- from accused Kuljit Singh and the same were taken into police possession. Accordingly, the present FIR was registered. Upon trial, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.02.2008 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under:- Under Section Sentence 170 IPC 419 IPC 420 IPC R.I. for one year R.I. for one year R.I. for two years along with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for 15 days.

#3. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner preferred appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga and vide judgment dated 08.10.2010 of the learned Appellate Court, the sentence awarded by learned trial Court under Section 420 IPC was reduced from two years to one year, under Sections 170 and 419 IPC from one year to six months.

#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 CRR-2873-2010 (O&M) 3 correct appreciation of the evidence available on record and the petitioner do not deserve any leniency.

#6. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record has been meticulously examined with their able assistance.

#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 the prayer is 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 CRR-2873-2010 (O&M) 4 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.

#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 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 petitioner, as per which the petitioner has already undergone custody of 01 month and 18 days out of awarded substantive sentence of 01 year.

#14. Taking into consideration the facts noticed above that the petitioner has faced the rigors of a long criminal prosecution and is having clean antecedents, 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.

#15. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, the present revision is disposed of in the following terms:- (i) The judgment dated 08.10.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga and judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.02.2008 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga are upheld with modification to the extent that the sentence of petitioner- Rajinder Kumar is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by him. CRR-2873-2010 (O&M) 5

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

#17. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

#18. Registry is directed to do the needful.

21.07.2026. Komal (SUKHVINDER KAUR) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether reportable? : : Yes/ No Yes/ No