Joginder Pal & Anr v. State of Punjab

IN T

Joginder Pal and

State of Punjab

CORAM: HO

Present: Mr

Mr

Mr

AMAN CHAUD

1.

against the judg Patiala, affirmin whereby they w Section 420 IPC 465 & 471 IP 467 IPC 468 IPC 120-B IPC

All

2.

Sho connivance with Pritam Kaur w mother, dated 1 valid Will dated after which an e 420/465/468/47

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDI

CR Dat d another

Versus

ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN r. SS Narula, Sr. Advocate with r. Pankaj Bhardwaj, Advocate for r. Jasjit Singh, DAG, Punjab. DHARY, J. (Oral) e present revision petition has gment dated 16.05.2012, passed ng the judgment/order of convic were convicted and sentenced to u Imprisonment Fine RI for 2 years Rs.20 C RI for 2 years - RI for 2 years Rs.20 RI for 2 years Rs.20 RI for 2 years - l the sentences shall run concurre orn of unnecessary details, the f h other accused, had prepared idow of Arjan Singh, who wa

5.06.1997, to grab her house, in d 17.06.1997 in favour of his mo enquiry was conducted and an F 1/120-B.

JAB AND HARYANA GARH RR-1608-2012 (O&M) te of decision : 21.11.2025

.....Petitioners

..... Respondent N CHAUDHARY r the petitioners. been preferred by the petition d by the Ld. Addl. Sessions Jud ction by trial Court on 07.06.20 undergo as under:- In default 000/- each SI for one month - 000/- each SI for one month 000/- each SI for one month - ently. facts are that accused-petitioners the forged and fabricated Will as dharam sister of complainan n fact, she had executed a legal a other. Thus, a complaint was fil FIR was registered under Sectio

ners ge, 10, h h h s in of nt's ed,

3.

Aft Cr.P.C. was pre prima facie cas framed against t

4.

Thereafter, the The incriminat innocence and a

5.

parties, convicte further affirmed

6.

Ag

7.

Lea challenge to the petitioners to th 15 days, respect to the poor strat any other cases agony of protrac

8.

Lea appreciating th sentenced the p He, however, af case and the per

9.

Hea

10.

Evi

ter completion of investigation esented in the Court against the se, charges under Sections 420, them, to which they pleaded not e prosecution, in support of it statement of the accused under ting evidence was put to the alleging false implication. e learned trial Court after hea ed and sentenced the accused-p d by the learned Appellate Court grieved petitioners are before thi arned counsel for the petition e conviction and prays for redu e period already undergone, it b tively, on the ground that they a ta of the society; sole breadwinn s; never misused the concession cted trial for the last 27 years. arned State counsel opposes on e evidence led by the prosec etitioners, therefore, prays for th ffirms the non-involvement of th riod undergone by them as per th ard the learned counsel on either idently, PW3-Nand Lal, compl

n, final report under Section 1 e accused-petitioners. On finding , 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC w guilty and claimed trial. ts version, examined 7 witnes Section 313 Cr.P.C. was record em, which they denied, plead aring the learned counsel for petitioners as noticed above, wh in an appeal preferred by them. is Court. ners, at the very outset, gives ducing the sentence awarded to eing 2 months 14 days & 2 mon are aged and first offenders; bel ner of their families; not involve n of bail and have been facing the ground that the trial Court a cution, has rightly convicted he dismissal of the present petit the petitioners in any other crim he custody certificates. r side and perused the record. lainant, had specifically named g a ere sses. ded. ding the hich up the nths, long ed in the after tion. minal petitioners for t during investiga also by report o which reported t going through th them. Thus, th conclusion arriv

11.

Thi 1134-2017 deci Sections 379, 41 10 months, by c in Jaggar Singh

15.05.2023, the convicted unde respectively, wa the offence was good-conduct si

12.

In S Court had obser lead a peaceful the lives of ordi reformative theo only through p harmony, brothe time offenders o

the alleged cheating and forger ation as deposed by PW5-ASI M f the Forensic Science Laborator the signature on Will dated 15.06 he evidence on record, the pros here is no scope for interferen ved at by the Courts below. As su is Court in Parminder Singh @ ided on 19.07.2017, wherein 11, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, considering that the petitioner w h and another vs. State of Pun substantive sentence awarded t er Sections 420, 465, 467, 47 as reduced to the extent of alrea s committed in 1999 and the a ince then. Satish vs. State of U.P., (2021) rved that, "Whilst it is undoubte and fearless life, without free ro inary peace loving citizens. But ory which propounds that a civ punitive attitudes and vindicti erhood and mutual acceptability ought to be liberally accorded a c

ry which duly proved against th Mehar Singh, Investigation Office ry, Punjab, Chandigarh, Ex.PW7

6.1997 was the result of forgery. ecution has proved the case aga nce in the findings recorded uch, their conviction is upheld. @ Kala vs. State of Punjab, CR the accused was convicted un reduced the sentence of one yea was facing trial since 2010. Simil njab, CRR-1306-2009, decided to the accused-appellants, who w 71 IPC for RI of 3 and 2 y ady undergone, while observing accused-appellants have maintai 14 SCC 580, Hon'ble the Suprem edly true that society has a right oaming criminals creating havoc equally strong is the foundation vilized society cannot be achiev iveness; and that instead pub y ought to be fostered. Thus, fi chance to repent their past and lo hem er as 7/A, . On ainst RR-nder ar to larly d on were years that ined me t to c in n of ved blic first forward to a bri 1981 SCC (Cri)

13.

In B of 2003, decide occurrence took out of total sente to the foregoing 2795-2009, deci 468, 416, 417 a that the accused years; first time of justice and re

14.

Ho Officer, Tamil reduced the sent was convicted u 193 IPC read w that she was ag old.

15.

Fur 15 SCC 572, th and 3 years of sentence to the years old, unde lingering for 3 Investigation T

ight future. [Maru Ram v. Uni 112]". Babu Lal and another vs. State ed on 01.05.2024, Rajasthan Hig k place in 1989 and the accused ence of 2 years S.I, partly allowe g period. Similarly in Sanwal R ided on 19.03.2025, a case of co and 120-B IPC, this Court, in c d is 88 years old, and had und offender; no antecedents, took educed the sentence to the period n'ble The Supreme Court in Nadu, Criminal Appeal no.969 tence to the period already unde under under Sections 420 read with Section 136 of Income Tax ged 52 years and had children a rthermore in Edmund S. Lyngd he appellant was convicted unde RI respectively along with fine period of 248 days already un ergoing treatment, had paid the 3 decades and in Naresh C Through Gyanendra P.D. Si

ion of India, (1981) 1 SCC 10 e of Rajasthan, S.B. CRP No. 5 gh Court keeping in view that t d-petitioner had undergone 15 da ed the appeal by reducing the sam Ram vs. State of Haryana, CR onviction under Sections 420, 46 consideration of the circumstanc dergone 3 months 6 days out o a lenient view furthering the cau d already undergone. P. Soundarya vs. Income T of 2000 decided on 01.04.2008, ergone by the appellant wherein with Section 511 IPC and Sec x Act, 1961, by taking into acco as also that the matter was 25 y doh vs. State of Meghalaya, (20 er Section 420 and 120B IPC fo e of Rs. 1 lac and Rs. 50,000/- ndergone, observing that he was e fine amount and the matter Chaubey vs. Central Bureau ingh, 2018(1) SCC(Cri.) 293, 07 : the ays me RR-65, ces f 2 use Tax had she ction ount years 016) for 5 s 70 was u of sentence of the undergone out o with 465 IPC, b from several ailm

16.

Hu of trial since l learning of a circumstances w justice to reduce the fine intact.

17.

extent and as su

21.11.2025 ashok

Whether s

Whether r

e appellant was reduced to t of sentence of 3 years for convi by taking into consideration that ments. umanistically viewing, the petitio long; successfully warded off lesson; their socio-economic warranting reduction discernible e their sentence to the period alr e order of sentence dated 07.06 uch, the present petition stands pa

(AMA

speaking/reasoned : Ye reportable

: Ye

the period of 20 months alre iction under Sections 420, 471 r he was aged 75 years and suffe oners having suffered the ignom f their crime-proneness-an evid circumstances, this Court fi e. Thus, it would serve the end ready undergone, however, keep

6.2010 is modified to the afores artly allowed. AN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE es / No es / No eady read ring miny dent finds ds of ping