Allahabad High Court
Khaderu And Another vs State Of U.P. on 20 July, 2022
Bench: Gautam Chowdhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 178 of 2002
Revisionist :- Khaderu And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- R.C. Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.
The co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide earlier order of this Court dated 26.04.2022 dismissed the instant revision as abated against the revisionist no.1-Khaderu, thus the instant revision is pressed against the revisionist no.2 Chillu @ Raj Kumar.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist-Chillu @ Raj Kumar, learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record.
Present criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 25.01.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. II, Jaunpur in Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 1995 (Khaderu and another Vs. State of U.P.) whereby appeal filed by the revisionist has been rejected affirming the Judgement and order of conviction dated 14.06.1995 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, Jaunpur in Case No. 09 of 1989, whereby convicting the revisionist under Sections 323/34 I.P.C. by imposing fine of R s. 1000/-, under Sections 324/34 I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year, under Section 326/34 I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two years along with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default in payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment of three months.
Learned counsel for the revisionist contends that from the date of order of the learned Magistrate, more than 27 years have elapsed and therefore, sentence of punishment may be converted into fine. Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2004 (49) ACC 539 in the matter of Majister @ Budhpal versus State of U.P. wherein this Court has taken note of the fact that 19 years have elapsed since the date of revision and the accused was on bail during the pendency of revision and therefore, sending the accused to jail after lapse of 17 years would be against humanitarian approach and therefore, liberty was given to avail the benefit of provisions of Section 433(d) Cr.P.C. and the imprisonment was converted into fine.
Paragraph 8, relevant part of paragraph-9 and paragraph 10 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted hereinunder:-
"8. Section 433 (d) aforesaid provides for commutation of sentence of simple imprisonment for fine by the appropriate Government. In the leading case of N. Sukumaran Nair v. Food Inspector, Mavelikara, the Supreme Court in such circumstances provided such relief as being permissible to an accused. Para 3 of the judgment is extracted below-
"The offence took place in the year 1984. The appellant has been awarded six months simple imprisonment and has also been ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 1000. Under clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, "the appropriate government" is empowered to commute the sentence of simple imprisonment for fine. We think that this would be an appropriate case for commutation of sentence where almost a decade has gone by. We therefore, direct the appellant to deposit in the Trial Court a sum of Rs. 6,000/- as fine in commutation of the sentence of six months' simple imprisonment within a period of six weeks from today and intimate to the appropriate government that such fine has been deposited. On deposit of such fine, the State Government may formalize the matter by passing appropriate orders under clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."
9. In the case of Maqbool Ahamed v. State of U.P.(supra), learned Single Judge of this Court relying upon the aforesaid N. Sukumaran Nair v. Food Inspector, Mavelikara, altered the sentence awarded in such a case of food adulteration to the accused to six months simple imprisonment and also directed the State Government that instead of sentence of actual imprisonment he would pay fine which shall be deposited within stipulated period and then he would move an application before the State Government which on receipt of such application shall formalize the matter under the provisions of section 433 (d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
10. In the case of Prem Chand v. State of U.P. (supra) and Roop Chand v. State of U.P. (supra), learned single Judge has also preferred to adopt the same view of the matter to provide benefit of alternative to the accused under Section 433(d) aforesaid for the purposes to avoid his further sufferance in jail, which in the circumstances of the aforesaid case was not justified."
Reduction of sentence, as awarded in such case under the prevention of Food Adulteration Act is permitted as has also been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Haripada Das v. State of W.B. and another reported in 1998 (9) SCC 678.
After hearing the learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. and after perusing the judgment and order impugned as well as the averments contained in the present revision, this Court is of the opinion that as 20 years have elapsed since the date of revision and the revisionist has remained on bail during the pendency of revision, this Court thinks appropriate for commutation of sentence whereby more than two decades have gone by.
This Court, therefore, directs the revisionist to deposit before the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as fine in commutation of sentence as awarded to him, within a period of two months from today and intimate to the appropriate government that such fine has been deposited. On deposit of such fine, the State Government may formalize the matter by passing appropriate orders under clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Let a copy of this judgement be sent to the concerned Court for compliance.
Office is directed to transmit the record of trial Court as well as copy of the judgement to the Court below.
With the aforesaid directions, present revision is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 20.7.2022
S.Ali
