Forgery in Recruitment Cannot Be Washed Away, But Sentencing Must Reflect Reform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Conviction, Reduces Sentence for Dual Identity in Police Test

“The conduct constituting the offence was not the product of any inherent criminal propensity, but instead stemmed from an ill-conceived anxiety and over-zealousness to secure public employment” –  In a judgment significant for practitioners in criminal law and public service litigation, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the conviction of a police constable aspirant who appeared in a recruitment test under two different names, while at the same time reducing his sentence to the period already undergone, marking a vital reiteration of sentencing jurisprudence that considers reformative justice over punitive excess.

Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj, sitting in revisional jurisdiction, confirmed the concurrent findings of guilt under Sections 465, 468, and 471 of the IPC, involving forgery, use of forged documents, and creation of false identity in a public employment process. However, the Court took a socio-legal view of the sentencing process, reducing the two-year rigorous imprisonment to the three months already served in custody.

“Once both forms bore the same photograph, signature, and certificates, the only inference is that both were filled by the accused”— High Court rebuffs cyber café defence

At the heart of the case was a calculated attempt by the petitioner, Balwinder Singh, to re-enter the constable selection process under a false name ‘Baljinder Singh’, after failing to qualify in his first attempt conducted on 27.07.2016. When he appeared again for the physical trials on 17.08.2016, officials became suspicious and cross-verified records, revealing that both applications – under different names – were submitted online using identical photos, signatures, and supporting documents.

The Court categorically rejected the argument that the discrepancy arose due to a cyber café error or clerical oversight. In words that will resonate with criminal defence lawyers and appellate counsel alike, Justice Bhardwaj noted, “The petitioner’s own admission during trial was that he filled both forms – one with incorrect name ‘Baljinder Singh’ and another correctly. Such a defence clearly negates his later claim that he never appeared in the second test.”

The Court further held that a completely new line of defence introduced only at the revisional stage—namely, that the petitioner did not appear for the second test—was “an afterthought and legally impermissible.” It ruled that “revisional jurisdiction does not allow introduction of fresh facts or defences that were never pleaded or substantiated at trial or during appeal.”

“Sentencing must be stern where necessary, but tempered with mercy where justice demands” – High Court invokes Supreme Court precedents on reformative sentencing

Where the judgment takes a remarkable turn for sentencing advocates is its elaborate discussion on punishment. While refusing to interfere with conviction, the Court invoked a reformative approach to criminal sentencing, relying extensively on State of Punjab v. Prem Sagar (2008) 7 SCC 550 and Shailesh Jasvantbhai v. State of Gujarat (2006) 2 SCC 359, both of which emphasize balancing deterrence with individual reformation and socio-economic context.

Justice Bhardwaj observed, “The purpose of sentencing being both deterrent as well as reformative, factors such as psychological and sociological circumstances of an accused, the gravity and manner of the offence, and antecedents must be weighed.”

The Court noted that the petitioner had no prior or subsequent criminal record, was 27 years old at the time of the incident, had since married and become a father to two young children, and had faced nine years of protracted criminal litigation. Most importantly, there was no indication of repeat offending or sustained criminal behaviour.

In a passage that reflects a humane yet firm judicial philosophy, the Court declared, “It appears that the conduct constituting the offence was not the product of any inherent criminal propensity, but instead stemmed from an ill-conceived anxiety and over-zealousness to secure public employment.”

Recognizing the reformative effect of the proceedings already endured, the Court held that custodial sentence was no longer necessary, ordering that the sentence be reduced to the period already undergone, and the petitioner be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

“Judicial discretion must serve both justice and humanity”— A model judgment for defence and prosecution lawyers navigating sentencing debates

This ruling is a textbook reference for the Bar on how to balance factual guilt with sentencing mercy, particularly in cases involving first-time offenders, public recruitment violations, and young aspirants who err in judgment rather than in principle.

Justice Bhardwaj’s careful navigation of precedent, his firm rejection of belated defences, and his application of sentencing discretion in light of individual circumstances makes this decision particularly instructive for criminal defence lawyers, sentencing policy advocates, and public law practitioners.

The decision affirms that conviction in law need not always mandate maximum punishment, and that reformation, rehabilitation, and reintegration continue to be cardinal principles under Indian sentencing jurisprudence.

Date of Decision: 14.11.2025