The Punjab and Haryana High Court affirms trial and appellate court convictions under serious cheating and forgery offences, but reduces sentence to period already undergone considering absence of prior or subsequent offences and demonstrated reformation. This ruling upholds existing precedent and serves as binding authority for sentencing discretion in similar cases, particularly in the absence of criminal antecedents.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRR/2410/2025 of RANJANA Vs STATE OF PUNJAB |
| CNR | PHHC011537522025 |
| Date of Registration | 23-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 29-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF |
| Judgment Author | Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value |
|
| Type of Law | Criminal Law (IPC – Cheating, Forgery, Criminal Conspiracy) |
| Questions of Law | Can sentence for offences under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC be reduced to period already undergone based on absence of prior or subsequent offences and evidence of reformation? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court upheld the convictions based on thorough appreciation of evidence by the courts below. However, judicial discretion was exercised to reduce the sentence, considering the petitioner’s lack of prior convictions, absence of pending cases, and her participation in mainstream society after registration of the FIR. The sentence was thus modified to the period already undergone (11 months and 22 days), subject to deposit of fine. The court found these factors sufficient to justify leniency in sentencing, without disturbing the finding of guilt. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner was convicted of offences relating to cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy (Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months. No prior or pending case was reported against her. The revision petition challenged both conviction and sentence, but at hearing, the challenge to conviction was not pressed, with prayer confined only to reduction of sentence. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts across India |
| Follows | Confirms long-settled principle that sentencing can be modulated considering individual reformation and absence of recidivism |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The court reaffirmed that sentencing can be reduced to period already undergone if the convict shows evidence of reformation and has no prior or pending criminal cases.
- Conviction for serious offences under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC does not preclude leniency at the sentencing stage if supported by mitigating circumstances.
- Lawyers should focus on demonstrating absence of recidivism and positive post-offence conduct to seek reduction of sentence.
- The prosecution’s lack of serious objection to sentencing reduction, especially when no other case is pending, can influence judicial discretion.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The petitioner confined her revision to seeking reduction of sentence, not challenging conviction or the merits of the courts’ appreciation of evidence.
- The High Court examined the petitioner’s conduct post-offence, noting absence of previous convictions and no other case pending, along with actual imprisonment already served.
- The court exercised discretion to modify the quantum of sentence, recognizing the petitioner’s reintegration into society and sustained good conduct since registration of the FIR.
- The fine imposed by the trial court was upheld, maintaining the punitive aspect of conviction while allowing the petitioner’s release from further custody.
- State counsel did not seriously oppose the prayer, and the court considered the custody certificate in making its determination.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Did not press the challenge to conviction and appellate dismissal.
- Sought reduction of sentence to period already undergone on grounds of no prior conviction and no pending case.
- Urged court to consider petitioner’s conduct and post-offence reformation.
Respondent (State)
- Raised no serious objection to reduction of sentence after verifying no other pending case and actual custody of 11 months and 22 days.
- Filed custody certificate confirming details.
Factual Background
The petitioner was convicted by the trial court under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC for offences involving cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy (FIR No. 210 dated 12.07.2016; Police Station Navi Baradari, Jalandhar). The conviction and sentence of 2 years and 6 months rigorous imprisonment, with fine, were upheld on appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. Upon revision before the High Court, the petitioner abandoned the challenge to conviction and sought only reduction in sentence, claiming good conduct and no prior or current criminal case.
Statutory Analysis
- Considered Sections 419 (personation/cheating), 420 (cheating), 465, 467, 468, 471 (various forgery offences), and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) IPC.
- No discussion or interpretation of statutory language noted in the judgment text; reduction of sentence was grounded in exercise of judicial discretion and evaluation of individual mitigation factors.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinion recorded; the order is by a single judge.
Procedural Innovations
- The judgment highlights judicial openness to limiting relief at revision stage to reduction of sentence, even when entire conviction was initially assailed.
- Accepted custody certificate issued by prosecution as basis for determining actual sentence undergone – facilitating sentencing discretion.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The court follows established law on judicial discretion in sentencing, especially regarding consideration of reformation and absence of criminal antecedents.