Crl. Revision No.458 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.458 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.05.2011 Data Ram ....Petitioner Versus State through Rupender Singh Malik, Block Development & Panchayat Officer, Narnaul ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Bipan Ghai, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Deepak Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) Petitioner was found guilty under Section 409 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul, vide judgment dated 31.10.2009. The appeal preferred by the accused/petitioner was dismissed and the judgment passed by the learned trial Court was affirmed by learned Appellate Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, vide judgment dated 16.2.2011. Mr. Bipan Ghai, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. Deepak Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that total mis-appropriated amount was Rs.98,000/- and petitioner is ready to Crl. Revision No.458 of 2011 (O&M) -2- deposit Rs.1,00,000/- with the pachayat fund/complainant. He has further stated that the petitioner has been facing mental stress and agony for the last more than ten years on account of protracted trial. Mr. Gaurav Dhir, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, states that petitioner/revisionist is the first time offender and no other criminal case is pending against him. He further submits that the petitioner/accused has already undergone about three months 11 days. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Karamjit Singh versus State(Delhi Admn.), 2001 (9) Supreme Court Cases 161, in paragraph No.7 observed as under:- "Punishment in criminal cases is both punitive and reformative. The purpose is that the person found guilty of committing the offence is made to realise his fault and is deterred from repeating such acts in future. The reformative aspect is meant to enable the person concerned to relent and repent for his action and make himself acceptable to the society as a useful social being. In determining the question of proper punishment in a criminal case, the court has to weigh the degree of culpability of the accused, its effect on others and the desirability of showing any leniency in the matter of punishment in the case. An act of balancing is, what is needed in such case: a balance between the interest of the individual and the concern of the society; weighing the one against the other. Imposing a hard punishment on the accused serves a limited purpose but at the same time, it is to be kept in mind that relevance of deterrent punishment in matters of serious crimes affecting society should not be undermined. Within the parameters of the law an attempt has to be made to afford an opportunity to the individual to reform himself and lead the life of a normal, useful member of society and make his contribution in that regard. Denying such opportunity to a person who has been found to have committed offence in the facts and circumstances placed on record, would only have a hardening attitude towards Crl. Revision No.458 of 2011 (O&M) -3- his fellow beings and towards society at large. Such a situation, has to be avoided, again within the permissible limits of law." Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paul George v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases 185, by taking note of a fact that accident had occurred 20 years earlier, ordered that the convict be released on probation. Keeping in view the dictums of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the facts and circumstances of the case, in the opinion of this Court, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the accused/petitioner, an old man of 73 years in the company of hardcore criminals; petitioner has faced mental agony for long more than ten years by facing criminal trial and appeal; moreover he is ready to deposit Rs.1,00,000/-, therefore, reducing the sentence for the period already undergone seems to be best option. Therefore, sentence is reduced for the period already undergone in the present case. The petitioner is directed to deposit the Rs.1,00,000/- as undertook by learned counsel for the petitioner, with the trial Court to be paid to panchayat fund/complainant within one month from today. It is made clear that in case the amount is not deposited, as directed above, this revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. With above mentioned modification in the matter of sentence, this revision petition stands disposed of. Let petitioner be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. (Alok Singh) Judge May 11, 2011 R.S.