High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRR/1029/2026disposed of

Tara Chand v. State Of Haryana

2026-05-07Mr. Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj10 pages

!"#$# %&'()((

!"!

! # $ % &

& *+ ( ,- ,( . '

()*+ ,- ! .)/ &01+/ 2 ) %

+ +34+ / !

5/ + ,+ + - ,( ./( 0 ) % 1 * +3 0 % )+ ( % 2

& +.+

) 6-&.* 2 1 01 & & 2 1 &+& 7 %+

& (, ) !-( 0 +3 8-&1+3 +. +/ !-( 0 / 93+ %- / 1+ (+ .

31 )+33+ &+& :/ + . - 2 #; (+ . &+& <</ - & !1

/ : + & < 2 ) ;

&+ +3 &/ :/ . & + 31 !+ !+&)+- +/ 1 $+*- + +.+ / 4) (,

) 0 % )+& ( 1 01& + & 1& + - & ' 11- &

22 1 - &

! 1 + + )+ & ; . - *% * 2 % & 2 ,+ & %+, + 2 2 7= : ; . - *% * 2 % & 2 ,+ & %+, + 2 2 7= < ; . - *% * 2 % & 2 ,+ & %+, + 2 2 7= ;

&2+-3 2 %+,* 2 2 / ) % 433 ( & 1& 2- ) - & . . - *% * 2 + % & 2 ) * ) 33 )

1 4 & & - 1 1-

3, A further challenge is also made to the judgment dated 10.04.2026 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, in criminal appeal bearing No.41 dated 19.05.2021, vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. In brief, the facts of the case are that, on 07.06.2017, a complaint, bearing no. 164/08 dated 30.05.2017, was moved by District Social Welfare Officer, Yamuna Nagar to Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar. It has been alleged in the complaint that Ranjit Singh s/o Ram Chander, r/o village

Jhanda, Tehsil Bilaspur had moved a complaint before the CM window, to the effect that, revisionist-petitioner Tara Chand had received old age pension, on the basis of forged document. He had submitted School Leaving Certificate allegedly issued from the Government Senior Secondary School, Salehpur at Sr. no. 1518, showing date of birth of accused as 05.08.1951. The said School Leaving Certificate was got verified from the school authorities and vide letter no. 638/17 dated 20.03.2017, Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, Salehpur reported that name of petitioner Tara Chand s/o Fakir Chand did not find mention in any entry at Sr. no. 1518 in the admission register of the school nor the said School Leaving Certificate was ever issued by the school authorities and the same is a forged document.

As such, he had received old age pension to the tune of Rs. 32,000/- from February 2015 to January, 2017 on the basis of a forged document. A demand notice no. 15304, dated 24.03.2017 was issued to the petitioner and he has deposited a sum of Rs. 36,754/- i.e. (Rs.32000/- pension and Rs. 6764/- interest) with the Social Welfare Department. Therefore, it is alleged that petitioner committed the offence of cheating and forgery of document against the department of Social Welfare, by way of receiving old age pension, on the basis of forged document.

On the basis of above said complaint, the present case was registered against the petitioner. Investigation was carried out, petitioner was arrested, documents were taken into possession and statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of the usual formalities of the

investigation, the report under section 173 Cr. P.C. was prepared and presented before the Court for putting the accused on trial. Copies of challan and other documents were supplied to the petitioner free of cost as envisaged under Section 207 Cr.P.C. On being satisfied that a prima-facie case punishable under Section 420,468,471 of IPC was made out against petitoner, he was charge sheeted on 03.04.2018, by the court of Sh. Vinod Kumar, the then learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sub Division, Bilaspur, to which the accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as six prosecution witnesses and closed the same on 15.07.2019. When confronted with incriminating evidence put in statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the petitioner pleaded false implication and claimed innocence. In his defence, the petitioner examined DW1 (Dr. Jassy Anand). After considering the arguments advanced, the testimonies of witnesses and the evidence placed on record, the Trial Court, vide judgment dated 05.03.2021, convicted the accused and sentenced him vide order of even date.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal before the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar. However, vide judgment dated 10.04.2026, the appeal was dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition. Since counsel for the petitioner had given up challenge to judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court as well as the judgment

7 passed in appeal preferred by the petitioner, hence, the case of the petitioner is being considered only on the quantum of punishment that has been so awarded. The following mitigating circumstances are pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner: -

) 1& >- 4+

% & ) ,+ </ + & ,+

)+0 3+% & 1 )

) %

+& ( +.& < ,+

&+,

)

) .

1 & -.. )+ ) % ) +(0 1& ) +2 / ) % 4+

030& , ) * +3 +10,

0 ) % )+ - & . + +1-+3 1 2 * ) - 2 ) *+?*-* 1 2 ,+ +4+ && (, ) +3 - / + +22 *& (, ) +%%33+ -

0 ) . )+ 1*

1 & )+ ) % )+

030& )* 32 , 22 1 2 -1) *3+

+- ) +2 / 33 &+

0 ) % )+ &- & ) &+3 2 + % 3 .& * +3 +3 %+

. 0 ,+

4)1) 32 )+

1+- & 0 + ?, + & )+ & )% ) %+ / 4)- , 1

% & . +&0+ 1* ) 1+- 2 6- 1 (vii) The petitioner has returned substantial amount received by him and in these circumstances, directing the petitioner to

undergo his remaining sentence would have devastating consequences for the family and on his health.

0 ; 2- )

-(*& )+ ) % )+& 10& + +3 +*- 2 /= 4+ & %

& )+ +

+*- 2 </= )+ +3 +&, (

& 13-& .

) 1*%

+ , 1/ ( 2 )+ 0 (

+ & (, )* Per contra, learned State counsel submits that both the Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence led on record and have concurrently recorded a finding of conviction against the petitioner. It is contended that such concurrent findings, based on proper evaluation of evidence, carry a presumption of correctness. Learned counsel further submits that the scope of revisional jurisdiction is limited and does not extend to reappreciation of evidence or to permitting the petitioner to set up a new line of defence. Interference is warranted only where there is a manifest illegality, material irregularity or perversity in the findings recorded by the Courts below. It is contended that the petitioner has failed to point out any such infirmity in the impugned judgments.

There is no allegation, much less any demonstration, of misreading of evidence or non-consideration of material facts. Thus, in the absence of any such jurisdictional error no case is made out for interference and consequently, there is no occasion to upset the findings of conviction or the sentence awarded and affirmed by the Courts below.

< I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned judgments.

Since the petitioner has given up the challenge to the judgment of conviction on merits, hence, the said issues are not being gone into at this stage. The discussion is thus solely restricted to the issue of sentencing and quantum of punishment.

This Court, in CRR-2697-2025 titled

, vide order dated 14.11.2025, has held that sentencing must prioritise a reformative approach, assessing an offender's background and circumstances rather than adopting a purely punitive stance. Mere involvement in an offence does not, by itself, establish criminality; instead, the totality of circumstances including the manner of the act, antecedents, conduct, and intent must guide sentencing. The law, therefore, distinguishes between errors of judgment and acts driven by deliberate mens rea, recognising that offenders are often capable of reform and should not be presumed beyond rehabilitation. The relevant extract of the aforesaid judgment are as follows:-

! "

: #

! $ %

!& ' !

!( $ $ !

! )

% * ! ' ( + , %

! !

- . / !0

!1 !

/ 0/ 0 2 . 3"

/ 0 / 0

% < @% . ) +2 +& % 1%3 * &/ 0& )+ ) 22 1 >-

) +- + 4-3& ( &+ . - + +3 .

)1A . ) %-(31 1

1 1 :

) (61 2 %- )*

3, %- ) (- +3

)+(3+ ) 22 &

1, B) + +%%33+ 231 .

(3, 2 *% 0* + & 2 *+0 ()+0- / ) % 1

2 3+4

)-3& 1* ) +& 2 -1) + +%%33+ +

- )

1, ; 2 & )+ ) % 3 .& 1+ 1 + &- % +1& 1 * +3 +3 + & ) 1

>- +. , 2+1& (, ) +%%33+ / ) +1-+3 1 - 2 ) +3 1 +3 +&, - & . (, ) +%%33+ / ) 2 *+0 & 1, )4 (, ) +%%33+ (, &-3. . , ) 22 1/ ) +. 2 ) +%%33+ + ) * 2 ) 1& + & ) 2+1 )+ +33 ) %

, ( 2 +0+3& (, )* )+0 +3 +&, (

&/ 3.) 2 ) 3.+3 % 1%3

& +(0/ + -221 *.+ . 1 1-* + 1 ? & ( 2 ) %

>- 3,/ the judgment of conviction dated 05.03.2021 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, as well as the judgment dated 10.04.2026 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar, are +22 *& 40 / ) & 2 1 &+& 7

*&2&/ + & ) 1 +4+ && ) %

&-1& ) % & +3 +&, - & . (, )* ) % / 2 >- & , ) 1+ / (

3+ & 2 )4) ) % % +11 & .3, 2 13 11 45 & . * 1 +%%31+

/ 2 + ,/ )+33 +3 + &

& % & 2 +11 & .3, 3'/( - ,( .

6 0 0 .

$ 1

&4 .