Forgery and Land Dispute: Supreme Court Reduces Sentence of 75-Year-Old Appellant

The case of Nirmal Dass vs. State of Punjab involves a forgery and land dispute where the appellant, along with his father and brother, was convicted under Sections 465, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Supreme Court reduced the appellant’s sentence from two years to one year, considering factors such as age, time elapsed, and partial jail time already served.

Background of the Case

The prosecution alleged that the appellant, Nirmal Dass, along with his brother Sukhdev and father Saran Das, manipulated revenue records to gain control over government land. The disputed land measured:

• 49 Kanals and 9 Marlas in Khewat No. 434 Khatuni No. 653
• 28 Kanals and 14 Marlas in Khewat No. 131/176

This land belonged to the Gram Panchayat of Jagatpur village in Nawanshahr district, Punjab. The prosecution claimed that the forgery was committed solely to unlawfully acquire this land.

Filing of the Case

Upon discovering the manipulation of revenue records, the Punjab Revenue Department conducted an inquiry and found sufficient evidence to register an FIR against the accused under:

• Section 465 IPC (Forgery)
• Section 468 IPC (Forgery for the purpose of cheating)
• Section 471 IPC (Using forged documents as genuine)
• Section 120-B IPC (Criminal conspiracy)

The case was registered as FIR No. 74 dated 04.10.1994 at Police Station Banga, Punjab.

Trial and Conviction

The case proceeded in the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nawanshahr. On December 5, 2002, the court found the accused guilty and sentenced them to:

• Two years of rigorous imprisonment under Sections 465 and 471 IPC
• Three years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 468 IPC
• Six months of rigorous imprisonment under Section 120-B IPC
• Monetary fines for each offense

All sentences were to run concurrently.

Appeal Before the Sessions Court

Aggrieved by the trial court’s decision, the accused filed an appeal (RBT No. 23 of 2003) before the Additional Sessions Judge, Nawanshahr. On September 26, 2003, the appellate court:

• Upheld the conviction.
• Reduced the sentence under Section 468 IPC from three years to two years.
• Imposed a fine of Rs. 4,000 on each accused.

Appeal Before the High Court

The convicted individuals pursued a revision petition (CRR No. 2027 of 2003) before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. On May 6, 2015, the High Court dismissed the revision petition, affirming the previous judgment.

Appeal Before the Supreme Court

Following the High Court’s dismissal, the appellant alone approached the Supreme Court of India, filing a Special Leave Petition (SLP (Crl.) No. 4278/2016). The Supreme Court initially issued a notice, restricting its review to the quantum of punishment rather than the conviction itself.

Arguments of the Appellant

The appellant, through his counsel, raised the following arguments:

• He was 75 years old and suffered from age-related health issues.
• Two of the three accused (his father and brother) had already passed away.
• He had already undergone five months of imprisonment.
• The land had been restored to its rightful owner, the Gram Panchayat.
• The lengthy litigation, spanning over two decades, had caused undue hardship.

Arguments of the Respondent (State of Punjab)

The prosecution opposed the appeal, arguing:

• The accused had manipulated official records, which is a serious offense.
• The lower courts had already reduced the sentence.
• The accused should serve his full sentence as a deterrent for such offenses.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court, after reviewing the case, noted:

• “The appellant is aged around 75 years.”
• “Out of three accused, two have expired.”
• “The litigation has been pending for over 20 years.”
• “The appellant has already served five months in jail.”

The Court acknowledged that while forgery is a serious offense, considering the appellant’s age, time already served, and the fact that the land had been restored, a further reduction in sentence was justified.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled:

“The sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced from two years to one year of rigorous imprisonment. The appellant shall also pay a fine of Rs. 10,000. In case of default in payment, the appellant will undergo an additional three months of imprisonment.”

The appeal was partially allowed, modifying the sentence while upholding the conviction.

Impact of the Judgment

The ruling has significant implications:

• It sets a precedent for reducing sentences in cases involving elderly convicts.
• It acknowledges undue delay in the judicial process as a mitigating factor.
• It reiterates that criminal convictions must still carry some level of punishment to maintain deterrence.

Conclusion

The case of Nirmal Dass vs. State of Punjab serves as an example of the judiciary balancing punishment with compassion. The Supreme Court ensured that justice was served while considering the appellant’s age and time already spent in jail. The ruling reinforces the importance of proportionate sentencing in criminal cases.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Nirmal Dass vs State of Punjab Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 18-05-2016-1741860972259.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Fraud and Forgery
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay Manohar Sapre
See all petitions in Judgment by Ashok Bhushan
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments May 2016
See all petitions in 2016 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category