Khadak Singh And Another vs State Of U.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 21416 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Judgment reserved on 16.11.2022
 
Delivered on  16.12.2022
 
Court No. - 84
 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 718 of 2022
 
Revisionist :- Khadak Singh And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Indra Raj,Alok Saxena
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

1. Heard Sri Indra Raj Singh as well as Alok Saxena, learned counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the records.

2. In the present criminal revision, concurrent finding of conviction as well as modification of sentence by the appellate court are under challenge.

3. Revisionists were convicted by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Railways), Mathura vide order dated 31.10.2014 in Case No.1891 of 2000, (State Vs. Khadak Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime No.04 of 1999, Police Station R.P.F. Mathura Junction, district-Mathura for committing an offence under Section 3 of The Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act and were sentenced for two years simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5000/- each and in default, one month additional imprisonment revisionists shall serve one month additional imprisonment and the sentence already undergone by the revisionists will be adjusted in the present sentence.

4. Appellate court confirmed the conviction, however, modified the sentence to the minimum of one year.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionists has argued on merit that evidence were not correctly appreciated by the trial Court as well as that incident occurred in the year 1999 i.e. about 23 years ago and presently revisionists are senior citizens and have already undergone about two and a half months of sentence and prayed that sentence may be modified to the period already undergone and further they may be given benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

6. Above submissions are opposed by learned A.G.A. that there are concurrent finding on conviction and sentence has already been modified to the minimum as provided under Section 3 of The Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. He also submits that in light of judgment of Supreme Court in Lakhvir Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another (2021) 2 SCC 763 and State through SP, New Delhi vs. Ratan Lal Arora (2004) 4 SCC 590, that where there is a provision of minimum sentence and relevant Act was enacted after the enactment of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, sentence could not be modified to grant benefit of Act of 1958.

7. In the present case, evidence against the revisionists remained consistent and nothing contrary was brought on record during their cross-examination, theft property was recovered from them, Trial Court has therefore, rightly held that revisionists have committed an offence of theft under Section 3 of The Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. I, therefore, do not find any ground to interfere with the order of conviction within the limited scope of revision as there is no illegality or material irregularity or impropriety in impugned judgment.

8. The other argument that revisionists have already undergone two and a half months of sentence and they may be granted benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, cannot be considered in the light of the judgment of Lakhvir Singh and others and Ratan Lal Arora (supra).

9. Revisionists have already been granted minimum sentence as provided under Section 3 of The Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, i.e. of one year by Appellate Court and it is settled law that Court cannot pass an order of sentence of less than minimum sentence provided under the relevant act.

10. Revision is dismissed.

Order Date :-16.12.2022

SB