Allahabad High Court
Sri Chand And Another vs State Of U.P. on 11 May, 2022
Bench: Shamim Ahmed
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 93
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 417 of 2002
Revisionist :- Sri Chand And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajeev Chaddha
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and Shri Suresh Bahadur Singh, the learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.03.2002 passed by learned Fast Track Court No. II, Ghaziabad in Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 1997, Sri Chandra and another Vs. State of U.P., dismissing the appeal preferred on behalf of revisionist and confirming the judgment and order dated 25.02.1997 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur (Ghaziabad) in Criminal Case No. 178/92/89, State Vs. Sri Chandra and another vs. State of U.P., under Sections 326, 452 I.P.C., Police Station Hapur, District Ghazabad, convicting and sentencing the revisionist No. 1-Sri Chand under Section 324, 452 I.P.C. for two years rigorous imprisonment for each of the offences with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and convicting and sentencing the revisionist No. 2-Rajendra under Sections 324/34, 452 I.P.C. for two years rigorous imprisonment for each of the offences with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, with default stipulation.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the present revision is being decided on the question of sentence only.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that maximum sentence provided to the revisionists is two years rigorous imprisonment. The rest of the sentence of the revisionist be converted into fine and the same shall not be treated as enhancement of the sentence. Learned counsel for the revisionists further submits that the revisionists are on bail, they were on bail during trial and have not committed any other offence. They have already undergone a sufficient period in jail.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing of the impugned judgments and orders and has submitted that the lower appellate court has rightly passed the impugned judgment and order after considering the evidence before it. The appellate court has also not found any illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the trial court, hence no interference is called for by this Court and the revision is liable to be dismissed.
I have perused the impugned judgments and orders as well as record, and in my opinion the same do not suffer from any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error which may call for any interference by this Court, hence conviction and sentence of the revisionists is hereby upheld, but taking in to account of the fact that revisionists have already undergone a substantial period in jail as under trial and after conviction by the lower appellate court, their rest of the sentence is converted into fine.
Accordingly, revisionists are directed to pay and deposit a total fine of Rs. 50,000/- in the court of C.J.M. concerned, out of which Rs. 40,000/- shall be paid to the informant of the case, and remaining Rs. 10,000/- shall go to the State. If the revisionists deposit the aforesaid amount of fine, they shall be released forthwith, if not already released and further if not wanted in any other case.
In default of payment of fine as directed above, the revisionists shall serve out the sentence as awarded by the trial court.
With the above observations/ directions, the revision is partly allowed.
Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the concerned C.J.M. for its compliance.
Order Date :- 11.5.2022
Mustaqeem.
