In CRR-1019-2022 (O&M)-PUNJ HC- Criminal justice jurisprudence adopted in Country is not retributive but reformative and corrective: P&H HC
Justice Harsh Bunger [06-01-2023]

Read Order: Harbans v. State of U.T. Chandigarh 

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, January 7, 2023: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reduced the sentence of imprisonment of a 42-year-old man to the term already undergone in a case where he was convicted and sentenced for offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, considering his nine month long sentence as also the fact that he lacked criminal antecedents and was sole breadwinner of his family which included his son who was suffering from health problems and disability to the extent of 90%. 

The Bench of Justice Harsh Bunger also observed,  “...  the criminal justice jurisprudence adopted in the country is not retributive but reformative and corrective.”

In 2012, in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh, the present petitioner, while appearing as surety for the accused in a Section 138 NI Act complaint, impersonated as Manish Kumar and placed on record the forged and fabricated copies of the registration certificate of the vehicle Indica Car and driving licence with an intention to commit cheating. While appearing as surety furnished the bail bonds in which he used the above said forged documents as genuine and committed cheating to the complainant and the registration authority, U.T., Chandigarh. 

The lower court convicted and sentenced the petitioner for offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the present petitioner and the sentence imposed upon him was upheld. Accordingly, the present revision petition was filed. 

After hearing the parties, the Court observed there was no illegality or perversity in the findings returned by both the Courts below, which may warrant interference of the High Court by invoking revisional jurisdiction. The conviction of the petitioner was upheld. 

Before considering the submissions of the petitioner’s counsel on the issue of quantum of sentence, the Bench referred to a plethora explaining rehabilitation & reformative aspects in sentencing. 

After considering relevant case laws, the Bench observed that the criminal justice jurisprudence adopted in the country is not retributive but reformative and corrective.

Adverting to the present case, the Bench took into consideration the facts that the FIR in this case was lodged in 2012 and the petitioner, 42-year-old sole breadwinner of his family, had suffered the agony of trial/appeal/revision for more than 10 years. The Court also took note of the fact that the petitioner's son was suffering from health problems and disability to the extent of 90 percent and that he had already undergone a total sentence (excluding parole) of 09 months and 22 days and was not involved in any other case. Accordingly, the Court felt that the ends of justice would be met, if the sentence awarded to the petitioner was reduced to the period already undergone by him. 

Accordingly, the present revision petition was partly allowed.