Allahabad High Court
Ramesh Chand Mangal And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 May, 2022
Bench: Gautam Chowdhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 86
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1558 of 2001
Revisionist :- Ramesh Chand Mangal And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- B.B.Paul
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate
Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.
Heard Ashwani Kumar Soni, learned counsel holding brief of Sri B.B.Paul learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the State.
Present criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 22.05.2001 passed by learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Agra in Criminal Appeal No. 106 of 1996 (Ramesh Chand Mangal Vs. State of U.P. and another) whereby criminal appeal filed by the revisionists has been dismissed affirming the Judgement and order of conviction dated 01.08.1996 passed by VIIth Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra in Case No. 423 of 1993 (Satish Chand Vs. Ramesh Chand and another), whereby revisionists have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment of one year for the offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, along with fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default in payment of fine to further undergo for additional imprisonment of three months.
Learned counsel for the revisionists contends that from the date of order of the learned Magistrate, more than 26 years have elapsed and the revisionists are old ailing person, who are unable to walk and therefore, sentence of punishment may be converted into fine. Learned counsel for the revisionists 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 revisionists, 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 26 years have elapsed since the date of revision and the revisionists 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 revisionists to deposit before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur, a sum of Rs. 5000/- as fine in commutation of sentence of one year 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.
With the aforesaid directions, present revision is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 17.5.2022
S.Ali
