Allahabad High Court
Farooq And Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 12 May, 2022
Bench: Shamim Ahmed
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 93
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2695 of 2008
Revisionist :- Farooq And Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Janardan Prasad Tripathi,Devendra Pratap Singh,Mohd. Kalim
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 18.09.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Allahabad in criminal revision no. 247 of 2005 Mahmood Ali Vs. State of U.P. and Five others, arising out of Criminal Complaint Case No. 2678 of 2004, Mahmood Ali Vs. Farooq and others, under Section 323, 452, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Naini, District Allahabad, thereby convicting and sentencing the revisionists under Sections 323 I.P.C. for six months rigorous imprisonment, two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine six months further rigorous imprisonment under Section 452 I.P.C. and one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 506 I.P.C.
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 revisionists submits that maximum sentence provided to the revisionist is two years for offence under Sections 452 I.P.C. The rest of the sentence of the revisionists 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 have undergone a substantial period of punishment and now the revisionists is on interim bail.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing of the impugned order and has submitted that the lower appellate court has rightly passed the impugned judgment and order after considering the evidence before it, hence no interference is called for by this Court and the revision is liable to be dismissed.
I have perused the impugned judgment 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 the conviction and sentence of the revisionists is hereby upheld. But taking in account of the fact that revisionists have already undergone sufficient period in jail as under trial and after conviction by the lower appellate court, his rest of the sentence be converted into a fine.
Accordingly, revisionists are directed to pay and deposit 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-Mahmood Ali and 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 the fine as directed above, the revisionists shall serve out the sentence as awarded by the courts below.
In view of the above, the revision is partly allowed.
Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to C.J.M., concerned for its compliance.
Order Date :- 12.5.2022
Arvind
