Allahabad High Court
Dileep Kumar Sahgal And Ors. vs State Of U.P. Through C.B.I. on 3 August, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 10
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 30 of 2012
Revisionist :- Dileep Kumar Sahgal And Ors.
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Through C.B.I.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Upendra Kumar Awasthi,Nadeem Murtaza
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Bireshwar Nath
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 CrPC has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 25.01.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I. Court No. 1, Lucknow whereby Criminal Appeal No.124 of 2007, arising out of Criminal Case No.57 of 1987 (R.C. No.06 of 1984), under Sections 120-B and 420 IPC lodged at Police Station Deeh, District Raebareli, preferred by the revisionists by means of which, while dismissing the appeal, learned Special Judge has modified the order dated 16.05.2007 passed by the learned trial Court, and convicted and sentenced the revisionists as follows:
i. U/s 120-B 6 months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- each; and
ii. U/s 420 1 year's rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- each and, in default of payment of fine, 2 months' simple imprisonment. It has also been directed that all the sentences will run concurrently.
2. Shri Nadeem Murtaza, learned counsel for the accused-revisionists, submits that accused-revisionists have not been convicted previously for any offence and they are the first time offenders. The learned counsel at the outset submits that he is not challenging the impugned judgment and order of conviction and he is confining his submission in the revision only with respect to the order of sentence.
3. In view of the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the accused-revisionists, the revision is dismissed so far as it relates to the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court. The impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court is hereby, upheld.
4. Learned counsel for accused-revisionists submits that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, including the fact that the accused-revisionists have not been convicted previously for any offence, the trial court ought to have invoked the provisions of The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
5. The Trial Court did neither invoke the provisions of the aforesaid Act nor the provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C. while sentencing the accused-revisionists. The Trial Court has not given any special reason in the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence for not giving the benefit of provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C. or the provisions of Act, 1958.
6. Learned counsel for the accused-revisionists submits that to that extent, the impugned judgment and order suffers from serious illegality being violative of provisions of section 361 Cr.P.C. and therefore, it cannot be sustained.
7. Section 361 of the Code is required to be applied with or without the beneficial provisions i.e. Section 360 of the Code or provisions of the Act, 1958. If the Court chooses not to apply either of these provisions, it is required to give special reasons for not applying the beneficial provision in case the accused offender otherwise, is eligible for provisions of Section 360 of the Code or Section 3 or 4 of the Act.
8. The accused-revisionists have statutory right for claiming the benefit of beneficial legislation i.e. the provisions of the Act and the learned Trial Court was under a duty to consider the applicability of Section 360 Cr.P.C. or Sections 3 or 4 of the Act as mandated under Section 361 Cr.P.C. If the provisions of Section 360 Cr.P.C. or provisions of the Act were not applied, then the learned Trial Court should have recorded reasons for the same.
9. Learned AGA appearing for the State does not dispute the fact that accused-revisionists are the first time offenders and were not previously convicted in any other case. He also submits that in view of the express provisions of Section 361 Cr.P.C., considering the facts and circumstances, nature of the offence, the character of the accused-revisionists and particularly, the time period which has lapsed since the date of incident, the benefit of Section 4 of the Act can be granted in this case.
10. In view of the above facts and circumstances mentioned and considering the scope of Section 4 of the Act, this revision is, accordingly, dismissed and conviction of the accused-revisionists is upheld. However, they are granted the benefit of Section 4 of the Act. The accused-revisionists are released on probation. The accused-revisionists shall file personal bonds to the tune of Rs.20,000/- and they shall keep peace in the society and shall not commit any such offence in future. These bonds shall be for one year. The accused-revisionists shall file the bonds within a period of one month from today. As provided under Section 5 of the Act, compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand) is imposed upon the revisionists, Dileep Kumar Sahgal and Kamal Kumar (Rs. 75,000/- each) since it has been stated at the Bar by learned counsel for the revisionists, Mr. Nadeem Murtaza, that revisionist no. 3, Ashok Kumar has died. Out of this amount, Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand) shall be deposited in 'U.P. Gosewa Ayog, Lucknow' (Account No.98160100004196, IFSC Code BARB0EXTLUC) and Rs.75,000/- shall be deposited in 'Drishti Samajik Sansthan (Current Account No.10059000316, SBI, Mahanagar, Lucknow, IFS Code:SBIN0008189), within a period of four weeks from today. Receipts of the said deposit shall be filed by the revisionists along with the bail-bonds.
11. In case of breach of any of the said conditions, the accused-revisionists will subject themselves to undergo the sentence before the Trial Court as per law
12. Let the copy of this judgment as well as the record be transmitted to the concerned Trial Court forthwith for necessary compliance.
13. Let lower court record be sent back forthwith.
Order Date :- 3.8.2022
MVS/-
