High Court of Delhi was dealing with the petition filed under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order on sentence dated 19.09.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge in FIR registered under Sections 392/397/34 of the IPC whereby, the appellant was convicted under Sections 392/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo, the sentence already undergone along with fine of Rs.20,000/-.
Appellant’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is from poor strata of society and is unable to pay the fine amount of Rs.20,000/-. The family of the appellant is stated to consist of aged parents, who are surviving on old-age pension and it is submitted that the appellant has no source of income. It was submitted that the appellant has already undergone sentence of about of 03 years, one month and 14 days on the date when he was sentenced for the period already undergone vide order on sentence dated 19.09.2018.
Respondent’s Contention:
Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the learned trial court has already taken a lenient view and the appeal is not maintainable in view of provisions of Section 375 of Cr.P.C.
HC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides and looking into the Section 375 of Cr.P.C., HC stated that it can be deciphered that an exception is carved out under Section 375 (b) of Cr.P.C. regarding the maintainability of appeal on the legality of the sentence imposed by trial court.
HC relied upon the case of Palaniappa Gounder vs. State of Tamil Nadu where SC observed that a court must take into account, the nature of crime, injury suffered, justness of the claim, the capacity to pay and other relevant circumstances in fixing the amount of fine/compensation. HC also relied upon the case of Karamjit Singh vs. State where SC observed that punishment in criminal cases is both punitive and reformative. The purpose is that the person found guilty of committing the offence is made to realize his fault and is deterred from repeating such acts in future.
HC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the Court held that “considering the fact that the appellant is from poor strata of the society and is unable to pay the fine of Rs.20,000/-, the sentence of payment of fine needs to be reconsidered. The sentence imposed by the learned trial court is modified and the appellant is directed to be released, on the period already undergone as directed by the learned trial court and on payment of fine of Rs.500/”.
Case Title: Amit @ Sanjay v. State
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
Citation: CRL.A. 759/2019
Decided on: 5th April 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
