Partly allowed

Baljinder Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Jul 2026CRR/1122/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petition challenging conviction under Section 382 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. Counsel did not challenge the conviction but sought reduction of sentence citing delay and first-offender status. The court upheld the conviction, dismissed the petition on merits, but reduced the substantive sentence to the period already undergone, keeping fine intact.

What the court decided

AI extract

Baljinder Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

CRR-1122-2007 (O & M)

¶2

::1::

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

(249)

¶5

CRR-1122-2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: 01.07.2026

¶6

Baljinder Singh and anr.

¶7

... .Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Punjab ...Respondent

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

¶11

Present: Mr. Suvir Sidhu, Advocate, with Mr. Gursher Singh Dhillon, Advocate and Mr. Harlove Singh Rajput, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. Athar Ahmed, DAG, Punjab.

¶13

¶14

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

¶15

The present revision petition has been filed impugning the judgment dated 02.06.2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ferozepur whereby the appeal filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.05.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Abohar has been dismissed.

¶16

The FIR in the present case came to be registered on 14.12.1998. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence was passed on 09.05.2006 by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Abohar. The appeal filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence was dismissed on 02.06.2007 by the Sessions Judge, Ferozepur.. The instant revision petition was filed on 09.07.2007 and has come up for final hearing

¶17

SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.07.02 14:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

¶18

CRR-1122-2007 (O & M) ::2::

¶19

now i.e. after a period of almost 28 years from the date of registration of the FIR.

¶20

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner faced Trial in FIR No.170 dated 14.12.1998 under Section 382 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, Police Station City Sadar Abohar, and came to be convicted and sentenced vide a judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.05.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Abohar, as under:-

¶21

Offence under Section	Sentence RI/SI	Fine	RI/SI in default of payment of fine
382 IPC	RI 03 years each	Rs.1000/- each	RI 03 months each

¶22

The accused-petitioners preferred an appeal which came to be dismissed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Ferozepur vide judgment dated 02.06.2007.

¶23

The aforementioned judgments are under challenge in the present petition.

¶24

The learned counsel for the accused-petitioners, at the very outset, submits that he does not wish to challenge the conviction of the accused-petitioners but prays that keeping in view the fact that the FIR was registered in the year 1998, they are first-time offenders, the matter has now come up for final hearing after about 28 years and the accused-petitioners having already undergone more than 03 months each of their substantive sentences, their sentence be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

¶25

SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.07.02 14:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

¶26

CRR-1122-2007 (O & M)

¶27

::3::

¶28

The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has filed separate custody certificates dated 30.06.2026 and 01.07.2026 respectively which are taken on record. As per custody certificate, the accusedpetitioner No.1/Baljinder Singh has undergone 05 months and 18 days and petitioner No.2/Surinder Singh has undergone 03 months and 22 days out of their substantive sentence of 03 years each. He contends that the nature of the allegations levelled against the accused-petitioners do not entitle them to any relief as prayed for.

¶29

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶30

Keeping in view the nature of the allegations levelled and the evidence on record, I do not find any infirmity in the judgments of the Courts below. Therefore, the present petition is dismissed.

¶31

As regards the imposition of sentence, the petitioners are firsttime offenders and have undergone more than 03 months each of actual imprisonment. Therefore, while upholding their conviction, I deem it appropriate to reduce their sentence to the period already undergone by them. However, the sentence of fine and the sentence in default of payment of fine shall remain intact.

¶32

The present revision petition stands disposed of in the above terms alongwith the pending applications, if any.

¶33

(JASJIT SINGH BEDI) July 01, 2026 JUDGE sukhpreet

¶34

Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:Yes/No

¶35

SUKHPREET KAUR 2026.07.02 14:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

Baljinder Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Baljinder Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harmanjit Singh Walia Vs State of Punjab and Another

Sanjay Vs State of Haryana and Others

Jaswinder Singh Alias Jass Vs State of Punjab

Sandeep Kumar and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Kusum Rani and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Harpal Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others