Kulwant Singh v. State Of Punjab
CRR-512-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH CRR-512-2023
ORDER
RESERVED ON
ORDER
PRONOUNCED ON OPERATIVE PART PRONOUNCED OR FULL UPLOADED ON 20.04.2026 24.04.2026 FULL PRONOUNCED 24.04.2026 KULWANT SINGH ......... Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ......... Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present:
Ms. Suman Agnihotri, Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner/convict.
Mr. Akshay Kumar, A.A.G, Punjab.
**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J. (ORAL) FIR Dated Police Station Sections No.
30.07.2013 City, Jalalabad 465, 467, 468, 471, 420, 120-B IPC Criminal Case before trial Court CIS No. CHI/20/2014 Decided on: 21.11.2016 Criminal Appeal before Appellate Court CIS No. CRA/581/2016 CNR No. PBFZC0-004368-2016 Decided on: 08.02.2022 Convict's name Penal provision Sentence Kulwant Singh 120-B, 420 IPC Substantive Sentence: R.I for one year 1.
The present petition has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.11.2016 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jalalabad vide which petitioner has been convicted and sentenced under Sections 420, 471, 120-B IPC. and also against impugned judgment dated 08.02.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka, whereby appeal of the petitioner has been partly allowed and conviction & sentence awarded under Section 471 IPC is set aside and sentence of Sections 120-B, 420 IPC stands upheld and fine deposited by him for his conviction under Section 471 IPC refunded to him after expiry to the period of appeal/revision. 2.
Learned legal aid counsel for the petitioner submits that she would confine her arguments for reduction of sentence because she has gone through the record and in her JYOTI 2026.04.24 13:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
CRR-512-2023 considered opinion, it would be in the interest of her client, if she confines her submission for reduction of sentence.
3.
In this background, I am not going through the evidence and analysing the same because it is the counsel, who is the best judge for her client. 4.
As per custody certificate dated 18.04.2026, the custody of the petitioner in the above captioned FIR is 01 year, 05 months and 28 days. The sentence imposed upon him was 02 years. It means the petitioner has already undergone more than 3/4th of his sentence. Furthermore, once counsel for the petitioner confines her submission on reduction of sentence, it means she is not challenging the conviction and the State wins regarding success of the prosecution's case.
5.
Now comes sentence, the mitigating factors for reduction of sentence is the delay in the proceedings. The FIR in question was registered in the year 2013 and for the last 13 years the proceeding is pending before one Court and the other, which means the petitioner is going through the process of criminal prosecution, appeal and revision. Thus, considering the nature of offence viz.a.viz. the time which he has already undergone in the present case and the delay which has taken place in this case to be decided are sufficient mitigating factors to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone in custody by the petitioner. 6.
Given above, the judgment of conviction is upheld and order of sentence is modified and reduced to that of period already undergone by the petitioner in custody. Present petition stands disposed of. The bail bonds and surety bonds are discharged. Amount of fine deposited by the petitioner for the offence under Sections 120-B & 420 IPC forfeited to State as cost of proceeding. All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. 7.
Legal aid counsel shall be entitled to her fee as per the applicable Rules. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 24.04.2026 Jyoti-II Whether speaking/non-speaking:
Speaking Whether reportable:
No.
JYOTI 2026.04.24 13:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.