Allahabad High Court
Suraj Pal vs State Of U.P. on 8 August, 2018
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?A.F.R.
Court No. - 29
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 170 of 2005
Revisionist :- Suraj Pal
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajendra Jaiswal,Amit Chaudhary,Farooq Ayoob,Nakul Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Farooq Ayoob, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Aniruddha Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
The order under challenge is the judgment and order dated 09.03.2005 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Unnao in Criminal Appeal No.29 of 2004, by which the judgment and order dated 22.04.2004, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Unnao in Case No.1979 of 2003 arising out of Case Crime No.417 of 1997 at Police Station-Safipur, District-Unnao, has been upheld whereby the learned trial Court had awarded five years rigorous imprisonment under Section 420 I.P.C. along with fine of Rs.1000/- against the revisionist and in default of payment of fine, further 30 days simple imprisonment was awarded to him.
The prosecution story as narrated in the First Information Report is that the Inspector Incharge of Police Station-Safipur, District-Unnao had lodged the First Information Report against the revisionist and his brother, namely, Ram Das @ Ram Avtar and Suraj Pal both sons of Sri Ramju Yadav. The allegation in the First Information Report is that the revisionist and his brother Ram Das @ Ram Avtar took loan of Rs.3,000/- from Avadh Gramin Bank Branch Safipur, District-Unnao showing themselves as 'Pasi' by caste (Scheduled Caste).
The case of the prosecution is that the present revisionist and his brother are not the Scheduled Caste candidate i.e 'Pasi' by caste but they come within the category of Other Backward Class (O.B.C.) for the reason that father of the revisionist was 'Yadav' by caste, however, the mother of the revisionist was 'Pasi' by caste (Scheduled Caste). Therefore, the criminal case was registered against them under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 I.P.C. Before the learned trial court, the revisionist had adduced the evidence submitting that he and his brother are 'Pasi' by caste because they are sons of ex-husband of their mother who was 'Pasi' by caste (Scheduled Caste), however, their mother subsequently married to another person namely Ramju Yadav, who was 'Yadav' by caste (O.B.C.). Therefore, the present revisionist submitted that he is 'Pasi' by caste and the allegation levelled against him is patently false and unwarranted.
However, the present revisionist could not establish his case before the trial court concerned resultant thereof the learned trial court held him guilty under Section 420 I.P.C. and awarded him sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.1000/-
Feeling aggrieved from the judgment of learned trial court, the revisionist filed an appeal before the court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Unnao bearing Criminal Appeal No.29 of 2004 and the learned appellate court passed the judgment and order dated 09.03.2005 dismissing the appeal of the present revisionist upholding the order dated 22.04.2004, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Unnao, thereby maintaining the sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/-.
Learned counsel for the revisionist, at this stage, has submitted that he does not want to argue the case on merits and he is only praying for the benefit of Section 360 Cr.P.C. for the reason that this is matter of about more than twenty one years old and the revisionist at present is aged about 60 years. It has also been submitted that Section 420 I.P.C. does not provide minimum sentence as it provides that if any offence is established under Section 420 I.P.C. then the sentence may be given to the extent of seven years and fine. Therefore, he has submitted that the revisionist may be given the benefit of Section 360 Cr.P.C. which provides that a person may be released on probation of good conduct or after admonition.
Learned counsel for the revisionist in support of his submission has cited the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 1992 (2) SCC 198; N.M. Parthasarathy vs. State wherein the accused person was sentenced under Section 420 I.P.C. and looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to grant the benefit of Section 360 Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has also cited the judgment of High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur passed on 15th January, 2013 in Criminal Revision Petition No.88 of 1999; Durga Prasad Jain vs. State of Rajasthan wherein the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 was given to the accused persons, who were sentenced by the learned court below under Sections 420/ 120-B I.P.C. for seven years rigorous imprisonment.
As per report of the Superintendent of District Jail, Unnao dated 27.09.2017, the accused-revisionist has remained in Jail for the period of one year, seven months and twenty four days.
Considering each facts and circumstances in detail vis-a-vis the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court and the High Court for Rajasthan and also considering the fact that the revisionist has remained in Jail for the period of one year, seven months and twenty four days and also the fact that the incident in question is about 21 years old and the revisionist at present is about 60 years old, I am of the view that the revisionist may be extended the benefit of Section 360 Cr.P.C..
Accordingly, the order of the appellate court so as the trial court for convicting the revisionist is upheld. However, the sentence awarded to the revisionist is set a side. Instead, he is granted benefit of Section 360 Cr.P.C. and Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. I order to release the accused-revisionist on probation with the condition that he shall furnish a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- along with surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court giving undertaking to maintain peace and maintain good behaviour. The revisionist shall furnish required bail bonds within a period of one month from today. In the light of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, it is also directed that the accused-revisionist shall not suffer any disqualification only by reason of his conviction in the present case.
With the aforesaid, this criminal revision stands disposed of.
Let the lower court record be returned back to the court concerned within a period of fifteen days from today along with certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 8.8.2018
Suresh/
[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]
