CORRECTED
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.531 OF 2016
(ARISING OUT OF SLP(Crl.) No.4278 /2016)
(@ SLP(Crl.)…..Crl.M.P.No.21881/2015)
Nirmal Dass Appellant(s)
VERSUS
State of Punjab Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
Delay condoned. Leave granted.
2) This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated
06.05.2015 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in
C.R.R. No. 2027 of 2003 whereby the High Court dismissed the revision
petition filed by the appellant herein.
3) Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. They, however, need
mention in brief infra.
4) The appellant and his brother Sukhdev were prosecuted and tried for
commission of the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 read
with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to
as “IPC”) pursuant to FIR No. 74 dated 04.10.1994 filed at Police Station
Banga, District Nawanshahr, Punjab in Criminal Case no. 166/2002 in the
Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Nawanshahr.
5) In short, the case of the prosecution was that the appellant along
with his brother Sukhdev and father- Saran Das manipulated the revenue
records of a land measuring 49 Kanals 9 Marlas comprised in Khewat No. 434
Khatuni No. 653 and 28 Kanals and 14 Marlas in Khewat No. 131/176 situated
in the revenue estate of Jagatpur owned by the Gram Panchayat of the area.
It was the case of prosecution that father and his two sons did this
manipulation only with a view to grab the land for their personal benefits.
6) On coming to know of the manipulation done by these persons in
revenue records and using the manipulated documents in the civil
proceedings in a suit filed by them in relation to the land for their
personal benefits to obtain the decree, the State Authorities (Revenue
Department) made inquiries and filed FIR against the appellant and his
brother which gave rise to the filing of charge sheet in the Court of
Judicial Magistrate against them for commission of the offences as
mentioned above. So far as father-Saran Das was concerned, he died prior to
filing of the case.
7) By judgment dated 05.12.2002, the Magistrate, Nawanshahar convicted
the appellant and his brother under Sections 465, 468, 471 read with
Section 120-B of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 2 (two) years with a fine of Rs.1000/- each under Sections
465 and 471 and rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of
Rs.2000/- each under Section 468 and rigorous imprisonment for six months
under Section 120-B and in default of payment of fine to further undergo
rigorous imprisonment for six months. All the sentences were to run
concurrently. It was held that the prosecution was able to prove the case
against the appellant under all the sections under which they were tried.
8) The appellant and his brother, felt aggrieved, filed appeal being RBT
No. 23 of 2003 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Nawanshahar. Vide
order dated 26.09.2003 the appellate Court partly allowed the appeal but
maintained the conviction by holding them guilty under Section 120-B read
with Sections 465 and 468 IPC and altered their sentence from three years
to two years with a fine of Rs.4000/-.
9) The appellant and his brother pursued the matter further in revision
bearing CRR No. 2027 of 2003 before the High Court. By impugned order
dated 06.05.2015, the High Court dismissed the revision and upheld the
order of the appellate Court.
10) Felt aggrieved, the appellant filed this appeal by way of special
leave petition before this Court. On 22.01.2016, when the SLP came up for
hearing on the question of admission, learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that he confines his submissions to challenge only the quantum of
sentence awarded to the appellant. On such submission being made, this
Court issued notice to the respondent to examine the issue of quantum of
sentence and, if so, whether any case is made out to reduce the quantum of
sentence awarded by the Courts below and, if so, to what extent.
11) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
12) Learned counsel for the appellant has urged only one submission.
According to him, out of three accused, two have died, namely, father and
the brother of the appellant during the pendency of this litigation. That
apart, the appellant is now aged around 75 years and lastly, the fact that
the appellant has already undergone a period of five months in jail, this
Court should take a lenient view in the case and reduce the sentence of the
appellant from 2 years to that of what he has already undergone. Learned
counsel also urged that the appellant has not retained any benefits
arising out of the land in dispute to him and it was restored to its
original owner (Gram Panchayat). It was, therefore, his submission that
this is one of the mitigating factors, which this Court should take into
consideration while deciding the issue relating to quantum of punishment
13) In reply, learned counsel for the respondent- State supported the
impugned order and contended that no case is made out to interfere in the
impugned order and, therefore, it should be upheld.
14) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of
the record of the case, we are inclined to accept the submission of the
learned counsel for the appellant in part as, in our opinion, it has some
force.
15) First, it is not in dispute that the appellant is aged around 75
years; Second, out of three accused two have expired; Third, litigation is
pending for quite some time; Fourth, the appellant has undergone five
months in jail.
16) We, however, cannot accept the submission of learned counsel that the
sentence of the appellant should be reduced to that of "already undergone"
as against his total sentence of 2 years. In our view, it would be too
lenient in the facts of the case.
17) We have perused the evidence and the findings of the appellate Court
and find that having regard to the totality of the circumstances such as
nature of offences committed and findings recorded by the appellate Court,
the sentence awarded to the appellant can be reduced from "two years" to
"one year". In other words, we consider it just and proper and in the
interest of justice to reduce the sentence of the appellant to "one year"
instead of “two years”. 18) In view of foregoing discussion, the
appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. The impugned order is modified
insofar as it relates to awarding of the sentence to the appellant. The
appellant is accordingly awarded rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) year
with a fine amount of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the
appellant will undergo rigorous imprisonment for further three months.
The appellant to undergo remaining period of sentence awarded by this
Court.
.……...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
………..................................J.
[ASHOK BHUSHAN]
New Delhi,
May 18, 2016.
-----------------------
9
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.531 OF 2016
(ARISING OUT OF SLP(Crl.) No.4278 /2016)
(@ SLP(Crl.)…..Crl.M.P.No.21881/2015)
Nirmal Dass Appellant(s)
VERSUS
State of Punjab Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
Delay condoned. Leave granted.
2) This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated
06.05.2015 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in
C.R.R. No. 2027 of 2003 whereby the High Court dismissed the revision
petition filed by the appellant herein.
3) Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. They, however, need
mention in brief infra.
4) The appellant and his brother Sukhdev were prosecuted and tried for
commission of the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 read
with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to
as “IPC”) pursuant to FIR No. 74 dated 04.10.1994 filed at Police Station
Banga, District Nawanshahr, Punjab in Criminal Case no. 166/2002 in the
Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Nawanshahr.
5) In short, the case of the prosecution was that the appellant along
with his brother Sukhdev and father- Saran Das manipulated the revenue
records of a land measuring 49 Kanals 9 Marlas comprised in Khewat No. 434
Khatuni No. 653 and 28 Kanals and 14 Marlas in Khewat No. 131/176 situated
in the revenue estate of Jagatpur owned by the Gram Panchayat of the area.
It was the case of prosecution that father and his two sons did this
manipulation only with a view to grab the land for their personal benefits.
6) On coming to know of the manipulation done by these persons in
revenue records and using the manipulated documents in the civil
proceedings in a suit filed by them in relation to the land for their
personal benefits to obtain the decree, the State Authorities (Revenue
Department) made inquiries and filed FIR against the appellant and his
brother which gave rise to the filing of charge sheet in the Court of
Judicial Magistrate against them for commission of the offences as
mentioned above. So far as father-Saran Das was concerned, he died prior to
filing of the case.
7) By judgment dated 05.12.2002, the Magistrate, Nawanshahar convicted
the appellant and his brother under Sections 465, 468, 471 read with
Section 120-B of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 2 (two) years with a fine of Rs.1000/- each under Sections
465 and 471 and rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of
Rs.2000/- each under Section 468 and rigorous imprisonment for six months
under Section 120-B and in default of payment of fine to further undergo
rigorous imprisonment for six months. All the sentences were to run
concurrently. It was held that the prosecution was able to prove the case
against the appellant under all the sections under which they were tried.
8) The appellant and his brother, felt aggrieved, filed appeal being RBT
No. 23 of 2003 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Nawanshahar. Vide
order dated 26.09.2003 the appellate Court partly allowed the appeal but
maintained the conviction by holding them guilty under Section 120-B read
with Sections 465 and 468 IPC and altered their sentence from three years
to two years with a fine of Rs.4000/-.
9) The appellant and his brother pursued the matter further in revision
bearing CRR No. 2027 of 2003 before the High Court. By impugned order
dated 06.05.2015, the High Court dismissed the revision and upheld the
order of the appellate Court.
10) Felt aggrieved, the appellant filed this appeal by way of special
leave petition before this Court. On 22.01.2016, when the SLP came up for
hearing on the question of admission, learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that he confines his submissions to challenge only the quantum of
sentence awarded to the appellant. On such submission being made, this
Court issued notice to the respondent to examine the issue of quantum of
sentence and, if so, whether any case is made out to reduce the quantum of
sentence awarded by the Courts below and, if so, to what extent.
11) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
12) Learned counsel for the appellant has urged only one submission.
According to him, out of three accused, two have died, namely, father and
the brother of the appellant during the pendency of this litigation. That
apart, the appellant is now aged around 75 years and lastly, the fact that
the appellant has already undergone a period of five months in jail, this
Court should take a lenient view in the case and reduce the sentence of the
appellant from 2 years to that of what he has already undergone. Learned
counsel also urged that the appellant has not retained any benefits
arising out of the land in dispute to him and it was restored to its
original owner (Gram Panchayat). It was, therefore, his submission that
this is one of the mitigating factors, which this Court should take into
consideration while deciding the issue relating to quantum of punishment
13) In reply, learned counsel for the respondent- State supported the
impugned order and contended that no case is made out to interfere in the
impugned order and, therefore, it should be upheld.
14) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of
the record of the case, we are inclined to accept the submission of the
learned counsel for the appellant in part as, in our opinion, it has some
force.
15) First, it is not in dispute that the appellant is aged around 75
years; Second, out of three accused two have expired; Third, litigation is
pending for quite some time; Fourth, the appellant has undergone five
months in jail.
16) We, however, cannot accept the submission of learned counsel that the
sentence of the appellant should be reduced to that of "already undergone"
as against his total sentence of 2 years. In our view, it would be too
lenient in the facts of the case.
17) We have perused the evidence and the findings of the appellate Court
and find that having regard to the totality of the circumstances such as
nature of offences committed and findings recorded by the appellate Court,
the sentence awarded to the appellant can be reduced from "two years" to
"one year". In other words, we consider it just and proper and in the
interest of justice to reduce the sentence of the appellant to "one year"
instead of “two years”. 18) In view of foregoing discussion, the
appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. The impugned order is modified
insofar as it relates to awarding of the sentence to the appellant. The
appellant is accordingly awarded rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) year
with a fine amount of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the
appellant will undergo rigorous imprisonment for further three months.
The appellant to undergo remaining period of sentence awarded by this
Court.
.……...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
………..................................J.
[ASHOK BHUSHAN]
New Delhi,
May 18, 2016.
-----------------------
9
