SANJIV KUMAR @ GORA versus STATE OF PUNJAB
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 711, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Ratio
[2015) 3 S.C.R. 711 
SANJIV KUMAR@ GORA 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1424 of 2009 etc.) 
MARCH 19, 2015 
[DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
A 
B 
c 
Penal code, 1860- ss. 395, 450 and 342 - Prosecution 
under- Of appellant-accused- Conviction affirmed by High 
Court reducing the sentence - On appeal, held: In view of 
the evidence on record the accused was rightly convicted -
His sentence cannot be reduced to the period already D 
undergone on the ground that more than. 10 years have 
passed after the incident - Sentence/Sentencing. 
Sentence/Sentencing - Imposition of punishment -
Principles to be followed by court- Discussed. 
E 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. After re-assessing the entire evidence on 
record, no illegality is found to have been committed by 
the trial court in convicting the appellant-accused u/ F 
ss.450 and 342 IPC, which is rightly affirmed, with 
modification of sentence, by the High Court. [Para 13] 
[717-F-G] 
2. It cannot be said that the conviction recorded G 
against the accused cannot be sustained, on the ground 
that Inspector 'G', who actually lodged FIR against the 
present complainant has not been punished'. 'G' was not 
the co-accused in the trial, nor this Court has made any 
H 
711
712 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015) 3 S.C.R. 
A observation as to innocence of the appellant-accused. 
As such, the decision given by Supreme Court in 
Criminal Appeal filed by 'G' is of little help to the present 
appellant-accused. [Paras 10 and 11) [716-C-D; G-H] 
B 
3. Sentencing for any offence has a social goal. In 
each case, facts and circumstances of that case are 
always required to be taken into consideration. For the 
purpose of just and proper punishment, not only the 
accused must be made to realize that the crime was 
C committed by him, but there should be proportionality 
between the offence committed and the penalty 
imposed. It is obligatory on the part of the Court to keep 
in mind the impact of the offence on the society, and its 
ramifications including the repercussion on the victim. 
D Therefore, the sentence against the appellant cannot be 
further reduced to the period already undergone, on the 
ground that more than 10 years have passed after the 
incident. [Paras 14 and 15] [717-H; 718-A, C-D] 
E 
F 
C. Muniappan and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2010) 
9 SCC 567: 2010 (10) SCR 262; Shyam Narain vs. State 
(NCT of Delhi) (2013) 7 sec 77: 2013 (8 ) SCR 951 -
referred to. 
2010 (10) SCR 262 
. 2013 (8) SCR 951 
CASE LAW REFERENCE 
referred to . 
referred to. 
Para 14 
Para 14 
G 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 1424 of 2009. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.11.2006 of the 
High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in
Criminal 
H Appeal No. 1746-SB of2005.
SANJIV KUMAR@ GORA v. STATE OF PUNJAB 
713 
WITH 
A 
Crl. A. No. 489 of 2015 
K. G. Bhagat, Rahul Dagar, Ms. Divya Shukla, Dinesh 
Singh, Neha Jain, Debasis Misra, Nitin Sangra, Pragya 
Baghel, Nishant Bishnoi, Saurabh Ajay Gupta, Kuldip Singh B 
for the appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. 1. These appeals are directed 
against judgment and order dated 8.11.2006 passed by the c 
High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 
17 46-SB/2005 whereby the appeal of Sanjiv Kumar@ Gora 
has been dismissed, thereby affirming conviction recorded by 
Sessions Judge, Kapurthala in Sessions Case No. 18 of 2003 
under Sections 395, 450 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code D 
(IPC). However, the sentence has been reduced by the High 
Court from 10 years imprisonment to 3 years imprisonment 
with enhancement in the quantum of fine from Rs.2,000/- to 
Rs.1,00,000/- under Section 395 IPC, and from imprisonment 
of 7 years to imprisonment of 3 years with enhancement of E 
fine from Rs.1000/-to Rs. 20,000/-under Section 450 IPC, 
without interfering in the quantum of sentence awarded by the 
trial court in respect of offence punishable under Section 342 
IPC. 
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and 
perused the papers on record. 
3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that appellant Sanjiv Kumar 
F 
@ Gora was posted as Assistant Sub Inspector at ~olice 
Station, City Phagwara. On 23.02.2002 at about 7.30 p.rrr.; G 
he along with
some others committed trespass in the premises 
of M/s. Wadhawan Forex (P) Ltd., and committed robbery of 
Indian Currency of Rs.6,64,576/- and foreign currency of value 
ofRs.13,44,500/-. PW-1 Sukhraj Singh (complainant) was H
714 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
wrongfully confined, showing recovery of Rs.10,09,076/- of 
Indian and Foreign exchange recovered from him, and FIR 
No. 19 dated 23.02.2002 was lodged against him relating to 
offence punishable under Sections 411 and 414 IPC and under 
Section 3(8) and 3(C) of Foreign Exchange Management Act 
B 
at the police station. On investigation, the said case filed 
against PW 1 Sukhraj Singh, Director of M/s. Wadhawan Forex 
(P) Ltd., was found to be false, and the FIR was cancelled. 
Complainant (PW1) Sukhraj Singh lodged a complaint with 
C 
Deputy Inspector General of Police (Internal Vigilance Cell), 
Chandigarh, alleging as to the manner robbery was committed 
from premises of the above firm, and the amount of Indian and 
foreign currency, as mentioned above, was taken away even 
though the aforesaid firm M/s. Wadhawan Forex (P) Ltd. had 
o a licence from Reserve Bank of India valid up to 28.05.2002 
for sale and purchase of foreign currency. On the complaint of 
PW 1 Sukhraj Singh, enquiry was conducted, and thereafter 
First Information Report No. 147 (Ex.PB/1) was registered on 
10.10.2002 against the appellant Sanjiv Kumar and he was 
E arrested on 22.02.2003. After investigation, sanction (Ex.PF) 
for prosecution was sought and chargesheet was filed against 
him in respect of offences punishable under Sections 450,395 
and 342 IPC. 
F 
4. It appears that necessary copies were given to the 
accused and the case was committed
by the Magistrate to 
the Court of Sessions for trial. The trial court, after hearing the . 
parties, framed charge of offences punishable under Sections 
450, 395 and 342 IPC against accused Sanjiv Kumar, to which 
G he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 
H 
5. On this, prosecution got examined, PW-1 Sukhraj Singh 
(Complainant), PW-2 Satwant Singh (neighbouring 
shopkeeper), PW-3 Gurdayal Singh, who proved sanction of 
prosecution, PW-4 Rajinder Singh, PW-5 Kartar Singh, PW-6
SANJIV KUMAR@ GORA v. STATE OF PUNJAB 
715 
[PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.] 
Gurwinder Singh, PW-7 Darshan Lal (Accountant of M/s. 
A 
Wadhawan Forex (P) Ltd.), PW-8 Surinder Singh Atwal, 
(Superintendent of Police, who enquired into the matter on the 
complaint of Sukhraj Singh), and PW-9 S.I. Amrik Singh (who 
inspected the crime). 
B 
6. In reply to oral and documentary evidence put to him 
under Section 313 Cr.P.C, accused Sanjiv Kumar pleaded 
that he acted under instructions of Station House Officer 
Inspector Gurmej Singh. He pleaded that at 'naka' on 
Hoshiyarpur Road, Phagwara, the team of Police men c 
intercepted a Maruti Car from which Indian and foreign currency 
was recovered, on the basis of which FIR No. 19 dated 
23.2.2002 was lodged against Sukhraj Singh, who was 
arrested for said offence. Appellant Sanjiv Kumar also took 
the plea that Additional Director General of Police, Punjab, 
D 
was inimical against him. In defence, the accused got 
examined DW-1 Inspector Gurmej Singh, DW-2 SSP Arun Pal, 
and DW-3 Reader Jaswant Singh. 
7. The trial court, after hearing the parties, came to the 
E 
conclusion that the First Information Report No. 19 dated 
23.02.2002 which was got lodged, in respect of offences 
punishable under Sections 411 and 414 I. P. C and Section 3(8) 
and 3(C) of Foreign Exchange Management Act, against 
Sukhraj Singh, at the instance of the appellant Sanjiv Kumar, 
F 
was false. The trial court believed the statement of prosecution 
witnesses and
found that the offence for which accused Sanjiv 
Kumar was charged, stood proved. Accordingly, he was 
convicted and sentenced vide judgment and order dated 
8.2.2005/11.2.2005 passed in sessions case no. 18 of 2003. G 
8. Aggrieved by said judgment, the convict preferred 
Criminal Appeal no. 17 46-SB of 2005 before the High Court. 
The High Court, after hearing the parties, affirmed the conviction 
of appellant Sanjiv Kumar under Sections 395, 450 and 342 H
716 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
IPC. However, the sentence was reduced by the High Court, 
as mentioned earlier. Hence, this appeal (Criminal Appeal 
No. 1424 of 2009) through special leave. 
9. Also, Sukhraj Singh (complainant) has filed connected 
B criminal appeal for enhancement of the sentence awarded by 
the High Court. 
10. On behalf of the appellant Sanjiv Kumar, it is argued 
before us that Inspector Gurmej Singh, who actually lodged 
First Information Report No. 19 dated 23.2.2002 against 
C Sukhraj Singh (PW1) has not been punished. It is contended 
that the appellant Sanjiv Kumar has been made scape goat. 
In this connection, our attention is drawn to the fact that vide 
order dated 28.4.2009 in Criminal Appeal No. 992 of 2009 
(arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 6705 of 2006 Gurmej Singh vs. 
D State of Punjab &Anr), this Court has already granted relief to 
him, as such the conviction recorded against the present 
appellant Sanjiv Kumar cannot be sustained. 
11. We have carefully gone through the order passed in 
E Criminal Appeal No. 992 of2009. What has been held in said 
appeal, filed by Gurmej Singh, is that the High Court erred in 
law in issuing directions while hearing the appeal of appellant 
Sanjiv Kumar, pending before it, qua Gurmej Singh, without 
adhering to principles of natural justice. We think it relevant to 
F mention here that Gurmej Singh was not the co-accused in the 
trial, nor this Court has made any observation as to innocence
of present appellant Sanjiv Kumar. As such, the decision given 
in Criminal Appeal No. 992 of 2009 is of little help to the 
G present appellant Sanjiv Kumar before us. 
12. Both the Courts below, after discussing the prosecution 
evidence as well as defence evidence have come to the 
categorical finding that PW 1 Sukhraj Singh was wrongfully 
arrested after the Indian and foreign currency was robbed by 
H the appellant Sanjiv Kumar, who came with fire arm in the shop
SANJIV KUMAR@GORA v. STATE OF PUNJAB 
717 
[PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.] 
and premises of M/s. Wadhawan Forex (P) Ltd., and out of A 
the robbed sum, part of it was falsely shown recovered from 
Sukhraj Singh by 'naka' party of police officers. The case 
registered against Sukhraj Singh was found false after the 
senior police officer, who held enquiry on the complaint of PW-
1 Sukhraj Singh. ·It is relevant to mention here that after B 
investigation, no charge sheet was filed against complainant 
Sukhraj Singh (PW-1). We have perused the evidence of 
prosecution witnesses, which include that of the neighbouring 
shopkeepers, in the light of the report dated 8. 7 .2002 of Sub C 
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phagwara (copy of which is 
annexed as annexure P-5) to the appeal filed by Sanjiv Kumar. 
We have also considered the fact that the foreign currency 
consisting Euros 1850, Pounds U.K. 150, Canadian Dollars 
500, Australian Dollars 500 and U.S. Dollars 895 shown to D 
have been recovered from Sukhraj Singh were actually validly 
held by him with other currencies as he had a valid licence, to 
deal with foreign exchange, issued by Reserve Bank of India. 
13. Having re-assessed the entire evidence on record, 
we do not find any illegality committed by the trial court in E 
convicting the accused Sanjiv Kumar under Sections 395, 450 
and 342 IPC, which is rightly affirmed; with modification of 
sentence, by the High Court. 
14. Next, learned counsel forthe appellant Sanjiv
Kumar F 
drew our attention to the case of C. Muniappan and others 
vs. State of Tamil Nadu1 and it is submitted that since more 
than 10 years have passed after the incident as such the 
sentence against the appellant should be further reduced to 
the period already undergone. However, above submission G 
is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the 
complainant, who relied upon the principle of law laid down by 
this Court in the case of Shyam Narain vs. State (NCT of 
Delhi)2. 
. 
1 c201 oi 9 sec 567 
2 (2013) 1 sec 11 
H

718 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
15. We have considered the rival submissions of the 
parties, and we are of the view that sentencing for any offence 
has a social goal. In each case, facts and circumstances of 
that case are always required to be taken into consideration. 
For the purpose of just and proper punishment, not only the 
B accused must be made to realize that the crime was committed 
by him, but there should be proportionality between the offence 
committed and the penalty imposed. It is obligatory on the 
part of the Court to keep in mind the impact of the offence on 
C the society, and its ramifications including the repercussion 
on the victim. 
16. Therefore, for the reasons, as discussed above, we 
are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed 
by the High Court. Accordingly, both the appeals are 
D dismissed. 
· 
Kalpana K. Tripathy 
Appeals dismissed. 
E 
F 
G 
H