JUDGMENT : Umesh Kumar, J. This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 12.02.2014 passed by learned Additional & Sessions Judge, Bijnor in S.T. No. 112 of 2012 arising out of Case Crime No. 139 of 2012 under Section 135 of Electricity Act, Police Station, Mandawar district, Bijnor, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 135 of Electricity Act to undergo one year R.I. and a fine of Rs. 5000/-with default stipulation; inter-alia on the ground that the impugned judgment and order is arbitrary and has been passed against the evidence on record; because the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has misread the statement of witnesses; because the appellant has been falsely implicated showing false and planted recovery; because the learned Trial Judge has passed the impugned conviction order in mechanical manner without taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available on record; because there is no independent witness of the occurrence and the impugned sentence is too severe. 2. 2. Brief stating the facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal runs as follows; fnukad 29-05-12 dks eSa voj vfHk;Urk jkeHktu flag] izorZu ny fctukSj e; ,l0vkbZ0 ,l0,y0oekZ] dka0 ukSfugky] dka0 n;kuUn] dka0 'kSysUnz] dka0 iznhi] ykbZueSu nsosUnz e; xkM+h e; pkyd okLrs fo|qr pksjh pSfdax gsrq dk;kZy; ls jokuk gksdj xzke 'ks[kiqjk Fkkuk {ks= eUMkoj esa i=kad 2060@fo0fo0[k.M fo0@b&1 tujy fnukad 15-5-12 ds fuLrkj.k gsrq igqaps rks xzke 'ks[kiqjk dh ubZcLrh esa yxk;s x;s fo|qr dSEi ls voj vfHk;Urk Jh gjsUnz dqekj 33@11 fo|qr midsUnz e.Mkoj fctukSj rFkk ykbZueSu egs'k dqekj dks gejkg ysdj taxy xzke 'ks[kiqjk esa n;kjke iq= pSrw fuoklh mijksDr ds [ksr esa le; djhc 13-30 cts fnu ih0Vh0MCyw0 dks pSd fd;k rks ik;k fd n;kjke mijksDr us jktsUnz flag dh ikl esa tkrh ,y0Vh0 ykbZu ls voS/k :i ls rhu dksj dkyk dsfcy Mky j[kk gS rFkk eksVj ls tksM+dj 7-5 gkLkZikoj dh eksVj pykdj [ksrksa dh flapkbZ djrk gS] ekSds ij ekStwn n;kjke mijksDr ls bl ih0Vh0MCyw0 ds dkxtkr ryc fd, rks ugha fn[kk ldk] ekSds ij voj vfHk;Urkvksa }kjk pSd dj fo|qr pksjh pSfdax fjiksVZ rS;kj dj ekSds ls tqM+s voS/k dsfcy eas ls okLrs lk{; lqfo/kkuqlkj djhc 08 ehVj rhu dksj dkyk dsfcy dVokdj lhy losZ eksgj fd;k x;kA uewuk eksgj fy;k x;k] ekSds ij ekStwn n;kjke mijksDr ls 'keu 'kqYd ds 16]000@&: tek djus dks dgk x;k rks bUrtke djus ds cgkus ekSds ls Qjkj gks x;kA mijksDr dk ;g tqeZ /kkjk 135 fo|qr vf/kfu;e dh gn dks igaprk gSAa 3. On the basis of above written information, FIR was lodged on 29.5.2012 at Case Crime No. 139 of 2012 under Section 135 of Electricity Act. The investigation was entrusted to S.I. Mehar Singh (P.W.3) who visited the place of occurrence and prepared site plan Ex.Ka.3 and recovery memo (Ex.Ka.2), recorded the statements of witnesses and after completion of investigation submitted charge sheet (Ex.Ka.4). Learned Trial Judge framed charges for the offence under Section 135 of Electricity Act on 07.01.2013. The appellant denied the charges and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution in support of its case has examined P.W.1, Sunder Lal Verma, Station House Officer, Ram Bhajan, Junior Engineer (P.W.2) and I.O. Mehar Singh as P.W.3. 5. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the charges and stated that he has been falsely implicated by the informant for the reason that he refused to oblige him. 6. 5. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the charges and stated that he has been falsely implicated by the informant for the reason that he refused to oblige him. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned AGA, have gone through the impugned judgment and order carefully and perused the entire record. 7. Submission of learned Counsel for the appellant mainly is that in the present case, there is no independent witnesses of the alleged offence except two police witnesses and the Junior Engineer of the Electricity department. Learned Counsel has argued that in absence of independent witnesses, the case of prosecution cannot be said to have been proved beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore, the impugned conviction and sentence is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. In the present case, one thing is necessary to note that the defence of the appellant has not been considered by learned Trial Judge. The D.W.1 Mange Ram whose agricultural field the adjacent to the field of the appellant in his statement has stated that the approval of electricity connection was given to the appellant on 03.11.2011 pursuant to which, he deposited a sum of Rs. 11,925/-on 15.11.2011 and in this respect documentary evidence are ( Ex.Kh.1 and Kha.2), but learned Trial Judge has not considered this aspect of the matter. The argument of learned Counsel for the appellant is that he has been falsely implicated by the informant for the reason that he has not fulfilled his illegal demand from the appellant. 8. Learned AGA on the contrary, opposed the arguments of learned Counsel for the appellant. 9. At this stage, learned Counsel for the appellant comes up with the prayer that in this case co-ordinate Bench while admitting the appeal had enlarged the appellant on bail by order dated 26.03.2014 and prayed that the sentence awarded to the appellant may be modified to the extent already undergone in prison by the appellant. 10. In this appeal, there is report of OSD (J), Computer dated 30.09.2019 by which, notice was issued to the appellant fixing 27th November, 2019. Office report dated 27.11.2019 shows that the service of notice was effected in person as per the report of CJM, Bijnor. On 27.11.2019, again this appeal was listed on 27.11.2019 before the OSD (J). 10. In this appeal, there is report of OSD (J), Computer dated 30.09.2019 by which, notice was issued to the appellant fixing 27th November, 2019. Office report dated 27.11.2019 shows that the service of notice was effected in person as per the report of CJM, Bijnor. On 27.11.2019, again this appeal was listed on 27.11.2019 before the OSD (J). On 18.01.2020, this appeal was listed before the Court, on which date, none appeared on behalf of appellant and this Court issued non-bailable warrant against the appellant. As per the report of Jail Authority, the appellant is languishing in jail since 04.02.2020 and thus, it is apparent that the appellant is detained in the prison for the last more than 9 months. 11. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that the offence against the accused-appellant was fully established on the basis of evidence produced before the court below but if the sentence awarded to him is reduced, he would have no objection. 12. In State of MP vs Najab Khan, (2013) 9 SCC 509 , the high court, while upholding conviction, reduced the sentence of 3 years by already undergone which was only 15 days. The supreme court restored the sentence awarded by the trial court. Referring the judgments in Jameel vs State of UP (2010) 12 SCC 532 , Guru Basavraj vs State of Karnatak, (2012) 8 SCC 734 , the court observed as follows:- “In operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or the deterrence based on factual matrix. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration. We also reiterate that undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice dispensation system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law. It is the duty of court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. The courts must not only keep in view the rights of victim of the crime but also the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment.” 13. It is the duty of court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. The courts must not only keep in view the rights of victim of the crime but also the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment.” 13. In Sham Sunder vs Puran, (1990) 4 SCC 731 , where the high court reduced the sentence for the offence under section 304 part I into undergone, the supreme court opined that the sentence needs to be enhanced being inadequate. It was held: “The court in fixing the punishment for any particular crime should take into consideration the nature of offence, the circumstances in which it was committed, the degree of deliberation shown by the offender. The measure of punishment should be proportionate to the gravity of offence.” 14. In Mohd. Giasuddin Vs. State of AP, AIR 1977 SC 1926 , explaining rehabilitary & reformative aspects in sentencing it has been observed by the Supreme Court: “ Crime is a pathological aberration. The criminal can ordinarily be redeemed and the state has to rehabilitate rather than avenge. The subculture that leads to ante social behaviour has to be countered not by undue cruelty but by reculturization. Therefore, the focus of interest in penology in the individual and the goal is salvaging him for the society. The infliction of harsh and savage punishment is thus a relic of past and regressive times. The human today vies sentencing as a process of reshaping a person who has deteriorated into criminality and the modern community has a primary stake in the rehabilitation of the offender as a means of a social defence. Hence a therapeutic, rather than an 'in terrorem' outlook should prevail in our criminal courts, since brutal incarceration of the person merely produces laceration of his mind. If you are to punish a man retributively, you must injure him. If you are to reform him, you must improve him and, men are not improved by injuries.” 15. Earlier, "Proper Sentence" was explained in Deo Narain Mandal Vs. State of UP (2004) 7 SCC 257 by observing that Sentence should not be either excessively harsh or ridiculously low. 16. While determining the quantum of sentence, the court should bear in mind the principle of proportionately. Sentence should be based on facts of a given case. Earlier, "Proper Sentence" was explained in Deo Narain Mandal Vs. State of UP (2004) 7 SCC 257 by observing that Sentence should not be either excessively harsh or ridiculously low. 16. While determining the quantum of sentence, the court should bear in mind the principle of proportionately. Sentence should be based on facts of a given case. Gravity of offence, manner of commission of crime, age and sex of accused should be taken into account. Discretion of Court in awarding sentence cannot be exercised arbitrarily or whimsically. 17. In subsequent decisions, the supreme court has laid emphasis on proportional sentencing by affirming the doctrine of proportionality. 18. In the decision Shyam Narain vs State (NCT of delhi), (2013) 7 SCC 77 , it was pointed out that sentencing for any offence has a social goal. Sentence is to be imposed with regard being had to the nature of the offence and the manner in which the offence has been committed. The fundamental purpose of imposition of sentence is based on the principle that the accused must realize that the crime committed by him has not only created a dent in the life of the victim but also a concavity in the social fabric. The purpose of just punishment is that the society may not suffer again by such crime. The principle of proportionality between the crime committed and the penalty imposed are to be kept in mind. The impact on the society as a whole has to be seen. Similar view has been expressed in Sumer Singh vs Surajbhan Singh, (2014) 7 SCC 323 , State of Punjab vs Bawa Singh, (2015) 3 SCC 441 , and Raj Bala vs State of Haryana, (2016) 1 SCC 463 . 12. In Kokaiyabai Yadav vs State of Chhattisgarh (2017) 13 SCC 449 , it has been observed that reforming criminals who understand their wrong doing, are able to comprehend their acts, have grown and natured into citizens with a desire to live a fruitful life in the outside world, have the capacity of humanising the world. 19. 12. In Kokaiyabai Yadav vs State of Chhattisgarh (2017) 13 SCC 449 , it has been observed that reforming criminals who understand their wrong doing, are able to comprehend their acts, have grown and natured into citizens with a desire to live a fruitful life in the outside world, have the capacity of humanising the world. 19. In Ravada Sasikala vs. State of A.P. AIR 2017 SC 1166 , the Supreme Court referred the judgments in Jameel vs State of UP (2010) 12 SCC 532 , Guru Basavraj vs State of Karnatak, (2012) 8 SCC 734 , Sumer Singh vs Surajbhan Singh, (2014) 7 SCC 323 , State of Punjab vs Bawa Singh, (2015) 3 SCC 441 , and Raj Bala vs State of Haryana, (2016) 1 SCC 463 and has reiterated that, in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. Facts and given circumstances in each case, nature of crime, manner in which it was planned and committed, motive for commission of crime, conduct of accused, nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into area of consideration. Further, undue sympathy in sentencing would do more harm to justice dispensations and would undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law. It is the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to nature of offence and manner of its commission. The supreme court further said that courts must not only keep in view the right of victim of crime but also society at large. While considering imposition of appropriate punishment, the impact of crime on the society as a whole and rule of law needs to be balanced. 20. The judicial focuse in our country has been towards striking a balance between reform and punishment. The protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law which can be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence on criminals and wrongdoers. Law, as a tool to maintain order and peace, should effectively meet challenges confronting the society, as society could not long endure and develop under serious threats of crime and disharmony. It is therefore, necessary to avoid undue leniency in imposition of sentence. Thus, the criminal justice jurisprudence adopted in the country is not retributive but reformative and corrective. Law, as a tool to maintain order and peace, should effectively meet challenges confronting the society, as society could not long endure and develop under serious threats of crime and disharmony. It is therefore, necessary to avoid undue leniency in imposition of sentence. Thus, the criminal justice jurisprudence adopted in the country is not retributive but reformative and corrective. At the same time, undue harshness should also be avoided keeping in view the reformative approach underlying in our criminal justice system. 21. In view of above discussions, it can be said that in the country like ours, the reformative and corrective approach has been adopted in criminal justice administration. Learned A.G.A. has submits that there is no criminal history of the accused appellant. There is nothing on record to show that the accused appellant is incapable of being reformatted. The accused-appellant is in jail for substantial period w.e.f. 04.02.2020 and as such he has been in jail since more than 9 months. In my opinion, every convict is entitled for the advantage of reformative and corrective jurisprudence and in view of this Court, if the sentence is reduced by period already undergone looking to the detention of the accused-appellant in jail, no harm will be caused and the purpose of justice will be served. 22. In view of the above, the sentence under Section 135 of Electricity Act which is for one year is reduced by period already undergone and fine is modified to Rs. 1000/-in place of Rs. 5000/-and in defaultof payment of fine, to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. 23. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is upheld with the above modification in the quantum of sentence. 24. The appeal is accordingly disposed of finally. 25. Office is directed to send the copy of this judgment to the court concerned for information and necessary action.