Surinder Kaur vs State of U.T.Chandigarh

R.L. Anand, J.

By this order, I dispose of two criminal revisions Nos. 1119 (Surinder Kaur v. U.T. Chandigarh) and 1115 of 1997 (Baldev Singh v. U.T. Chandigarh Administrator), as both the revisions have come up from the judgment dated 20.11.1997, passed by the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, who affirmed the conviction of the petitioners under Section 420 read with Section 120B, IPC, and reduced the sentence from 1 year to 6 months. Still not satisfied with the sentences, the present two revisions.

Both these revisions came up for hearing before Hon''ble Mr. Justice K.K. Srivastava on 1.12.1997 and his Lordship was pleased to pass the following orders :

"Notice be issued regarding question of sentence only including prayer for the benefit of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act as the revision is confined only thereto, for 17.12.1997."

Making an endeavour for probation, I have heard two senior counsel Sarvshri G.S. Gill and H.S. Mattewal, on behalf of the petitioners and Shri Ajay Lamba, Advocate on behalf of the respondent.

Shri Gill, appearing for Smt. Surinder Kaur, has pleaded that his client is a lady, she is a first offender, she is a patient of diabetes, asthma and cardiac problem. Moreover, the only son of the petitioner had died in an accident. Therefore, a lenient view shall be taken in the matter of sentence. The counsel further submitted that it is a fit case where the probation could be granted to Surinder Kaur.

Mr. Mattewal, appearing for his client Gurdev Singh submitted that his client is a Govt. employee having an unblemished record of 35 years and if his client is sent to jail, he would lose his job.

The prayer of probation made on behalf of the two petitioners has been stoutly opposed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the U.T. Administration. According to the respondent, already a lenient view in the matter of sentence has been taken by the trial court as well as the Ist appellate Court. He further submits that an offence under Section 420 IPC, is punishable with 7 years but showing compassion to the petitioners, the sentence has been reduced to six months. Mr. Lamba further stated that the complainant in this case was deprived of Rs. 1 lac and keeping in view the amount involved, no further compassion should be shown to the petitioners.

After considering the rival contentions of the parties. I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of probation. No doubt the object of the law is not only to punish the offenders but also to reclaim them. Equally true is the law that once an offence has been proved without reasonable doubt, it is the solemn duty of the law courts to award adequate punishment to the offenders so that the faith of the public at large may be infused in the working of the courts. The amount of cheating is quite heavy. A hardearned money of an innocent person has been deprived by the two petitioners. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners cannot be granted the benefit of probation. However, this court is inclined to reduce the substantive sentence of the petitioners from six months to four months.

With the above modification in the matter of sentence, the revisions stand disposed of.