Page 1

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.

1) 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

1

Page 2

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

2

Page 3

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

3

Page 4

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

4

Page 5

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

5

Page 6

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

6

Page 7

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

7

Page 8

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

8

Page 9

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