As it underscored the “agony” of facing a trial for 13 years, an appellate court has finally given a closure to a case against two Chandigarh Housing Board (CHB) officials for “trespassing” a house on their duty, with a fine of Rs 1,000.The two officials — Kailash Garg, then Sub Divisional Engineer (SDE) (Store), Kirpal Singh then Assistant Engineer (AE) — retired from the CHB now, had been facing the case since 2012 at the Chandigarh district court.The duo, after being convicted in 2024 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six-months by a Judicial Magistrate Court of Chandigarh for house-trespass, had challenged the order of sentence awarded to them in 2025. With the latest verdict, the retired officials’ imprisonment has been set aside and will now have to just pay a fine of Rs 1,000 each.An appellate court of Additional District and Sessions Judge Sonika, in an order pronounced on August 18, said, “the appellants (Garg and Singh) are facing the agony of trial for the last more than 12 years. They have been convicted and sentenced under Section 448 (house trespass) of the IPC. In these circumstances, this court is of the considered view that in this case ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded by the learned trial court to the appellants-accused is modified by directing them to pay a fine of Rs 1,000 each, for commission of offence punishable under Section 448 of the IPC”.The court maintained the judgment of conviction as passed by the trial court, however, modified the sentence awarded by the trial court.In 2012, the complainant in the matter, Vinod Kumar Bansal, alleged that accused Garg and Singh visited his house on February 28, 2012 “without any prior notice”. They forcibly entered his house and threatened his wife. A complaint in this regard was also filed with the Secretary, CHB. Bansal had then also sought information under the RTI Act regarding the name of the persons, who visited the house of the complainant in his absence. However, as per Bansal, instead of taking action on his complaint, a notice was issued to him in March 2012 for violation under the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act 1952. A complaint was then filed, and the court after recording preliminary evidence, summoned the CHB officials for the offence of house trespassing.After trial proceedings of 12 years, Garg and Singh, were convicted by the Judicial Magistrate Court in 2024, and sentenced to six months’ rigorous imprisonment. Filing an appeal against the order, the duo did not press the judgment of conviction and only against the order on quantum of sentence.Story continues below this adThe duo argued through their counsel before the court that they are retired government servants having responsibility for their family. “Due to the complaint filed in 2012, they are continuously facing mental and physical agony. Now they are in old age. Along with them, their families have also suffered a lot because of the trial”, they stated before the appellate court of Additional Sessions Judge.The counsel for the complainant, however, argued that the accused do not deserve any leniency as they have committed house trespass.Justice Sonika on hearing the matter, while citing a judgement of the Supreme Court in Karamjit Singh versus State, held that, “…the person found guilty of committing the offence is made to realise his fault and is deterred from repeating such acts in future. The reformative aspect is meant to enable the person concerned to relent and repent for his action and make himself acceptable to the society as a useful social being. In determining the question of proper punishment in a criminal case the court has to weigh the degree of culpability of the accused, its effect on others and the desirability of showing any leniency in the matter of punishment in the case”.The court observed that an act of “balancing” between the interest of the individual and the concern of the society is required in such a case.Story continues below this ad“Imposing a hard punishment on the accused serves a limited purpose but at the same time, it is to be kept in mind that the relevance of deterrent punishment in matters of serious crimes affecting society should not be undermined. Within the parameters of the law an attempt has to be made to afford an opportunity to the individual to reform himself and lead the life of a normal, useful member of society and make his contribution in that regard. Denying such an opportunity to a person who has been found to have committed offence in the facts and circumstances placed on record would only have a hardening attitude towards his fellow beings and towards society at large. Such a situation, has to be avoided, again within the permissible limits of law”, the court said in its judgment.