JASVIR KAURversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

                    [2012] 9 S.C.R. 1057

                        JASVIR KAUR                                 A
                               v.
                    STATE OF PUNJAB
            (Criminal Appeal No. 1961 of 2012)
                    NOVEMBER 26, 2012
                                                                    B
 [AFTAB ALAM AND RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.]

     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        Para 7
                            1057                                    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
    No. 2576 of 2011.
8
        J.P. Dhanda, Abhijeet Sah for the Appellant.

        V. Madhurkar, AAG, S. Mathur (for Kuldip Singh) for the
    Respondent.
c       The following Order of the Court was delivered

                              ORDER

        1. Leave granted.
D
        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.
E
      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 difficult task. In Hirata/
Mallick v. State of Bihar1 Krishna Iyer, J. quoted the English
Judge Henry McCardie as saying "Trying a man is easy, as
                                                                        F
easy as falling off a log, compared with deciding what to do
with him when he has been found guilty''. Unfortunately, however,
the question of sentencing does not receive due importance
and the requisite application of mind by the courts. In our
country, there is very little legislative, judicial or any other kind   G
of guidance available to meaningfully deal with the question of
sentencing. The absence of any guidelines makes the task of
the court more difficult and casts a heavy responsibility on it to

1.   (1977) 4   sec 44.                                                 H
    1060    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 9 S.C.R.


A calibrate the due punishment that might be awarded to a
  convict, taking into consideration all the relevant facts and
  circumstances. It is, however, regrettable that the courts hardly
  give the question of sentencing as much attention and
  application of mind as it deserves. The present is a case in
8 point. As seen above, both the accused, the wife and the
  husband have been found guilty of cheating and both of them
  have been given the same punishment, i.e., imprisonment for
  two years and a fine of Rs.2,000/-. Though, both the accused,
  the wife and the husband are convicted for the same offence,
c it does not necessarily follow that they should be punished in
  the same way. What seems to have been overlooked is their
  relative role in the commission of the offence.

       8. From the prosecution case and the evidence of
  witnesses it is evident that the primary role in the commission
D of the offence was of Ginder Singh, the husband, and the wife
  (the present 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 other
  accused, her husband who played the main role in the
E commission of the offence.

       9. In light of the discussion made above, we are of the view
  that a sentence of one year imprisonment to the appellant would
  meet the ends of justice. We, accordingly, modify and reduce
F her sentence of imprisonment from two years to one year
  leaving the fine undisturbed.

         10. The appeal is allowed to the limited extent, as
    indicated above.

G 8.8.B.                                   Appeal Partly allowed.