JASVIR KAUR versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2012] 9 S.C.R. 1057 · Decided: 26-11-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AFTAB ALAM, RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 9 S.C.R. 1057 
JASVIR KAUR 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1961 of 2012) 
NOVEMBER 26, 2012 
[AFTAB ALAM AND RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Sentence I Sentencing - Offence of cheating - Appellant's 
husband was Head Constable in the Punjab Police -
Allegation that appellant and her husband extracted money c 
from the informant by making false promise that a job would 
be arranged for him in the Police - Both the accused, the 
appellant and her husband were found guilty of cheating by 
the courts below uls.420 /PC and both were given the same 
punishment, i.e. imprisonment for two years - Notice issued 0 
by Supreme Court on the question of sentence in the case 
of appellant - Held: Though, both appellant and her husband 
were convicted for the same offence, it does not necessarily 
follow that they should be punished in the same way - The 
courts below overlooked their relative role in the commission 
E 
of the offence - From the prosecution case and the evidence 
of witnesses it is evident that the primary role in the 
commission of the offence was of the appellant's husband, 
and the appellant had only a subsidiary role - It also needs 
to be kept in mind that she is a woman - In view of the aforesaid 
facts, the appellant deserves a lesser punishment than the 
F 
other accused, her husband - Sentence of one year 
imprisonment to the appellant would meet the ends of justice 
- Penal Code, 1860 - s. 420 - Administration of criminal justice. 
Hira/al Mallick v. State of Bihar, (1977) 4 SCC 44 -
G 
referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
(1977) 4 sec 44 
referred to 
1057 
Para 7 
H 
1058 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 1961 of 2012. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 28.11.2011 of the High 
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Revision 
8 
No. 2576 of 2011. 
c 
D 
E 
J.P. Dhanda, Abhijeet Sah for the Appellant. 
V. Madhurkar, AAG, S. Mathur (for Kuldip Singh) for the 
Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
1. Leave granted. 
2. The appellant along with her husband has been 
convicted under Section 420 of the Penal Code and both of 
them are sentenced to imprisonment for two years and a fine 
of Rs.2,000/- with the default sentence of 15 days' 
imprisonment. 
3. The special leave petition giving rise to the present 
appeal was filed both by the present appellant as petitioner 
No.1 and her husband - Ginder Singh as petitioner No.2. The 
special leave petition at the instance of the husband was 
F dismissed and in case of the appellant, notice was issued only 
on the question of sentence. We, accordingly, proceed to 
consider the appeal to that limited extent. 
4. According to the prosecution case Ginder Singh who 
was a Head Constable in the Punjab Police extracted 
G Rs.70,000/- from the informantAngrej Singh by making the false 
promise that he would arrange for a job for him in the Police. 
The deal was struck at Rs.1,40,000/-; half of which, i.e., 
Rs.70,000/- was to be paid in advance and the balance half, 
after the employment was made. It is further the prosecution 
H 
JASVIR KAUR v. STATE OF PUNJAB 
1059 
case that on September 22, 2002, the informant paid 
A 
Rs.50,000/- to Ginder Singh at his quarter in the presence of 
his wife. Ginder Singh took the money and handed it over to 
his wife, the present appellant, who counted it before the 
informant. A few days later both the accused came to the 
house of the informant to collect the balance amount of 
B 
Rs.20,000/-. Needless to say that neither any employment was 
provided to the informant nor was the money refunded to him. 
5. Both the accused were tried by Judicial Magistrate, 1st 
Class, Faridkot, who, by his judgment and order dated March 
C 
29, 2010, passed in Criminal Case No.543 dated 14-10-2005 
(arising out of FIR No.22 dated June 2, 2004), convicted and 
sentenced the accused, as noted above. 
6. Their appeal (Criminal Appeal No.75 of 14.10.2005) 
was dismissed by the judgment and order dated September 
D 
30, 2011 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot and their 
revision [(Criminal Revision No.2576 of 2011) (O&M)] was 
similarly rejected by the High Court without any modification in 
the conviction or sentence vide judgment dated November 28, 
2011. 
E 
7. Coming now to the issue of punishment, sentencing of 
the convicted accused which is at the heart of the administration 
of criminal justice is both a delicate and

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.