Allahabad High Court
Sanjeev Kumar And Another vs State Of U.P. on 20 May, 2022
Bench: Shamim Ahmed
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 93
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 574 of 2010
Revisionist :- Sanjeev Kumar And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ajay Vikram Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
Heard Sri Ajay Vikram Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionists and Sri Vinod Kant, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned A.G.A.-1 for the State.
The present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 08.12.2009 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Mainpuri and judgment and order dated 20.08.2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Mainpuri in Case No. 2992 of 2006 (arising out of Case Crime No. 364 of 2002) under Sections 324, 324/34 I.P.C., Police Station Bichhawan, District Mainpuri, by which revisionist no.1 was convicted under Section 324 I.P.C. and sentenced three years and also imposed fine of Rs. 3000/- and revisionist no.2 was convicted under Section 324 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced three years and imposed fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine the revisionists have to undergo two months additional imprisonment
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 no.1 and 2 are three years. 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 revisionist has undergone a substantial period of punishment and the revisionist is on bail vide order dated 09.02.2010 passed by this Court.
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, their 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-Ram Pal P.W. 1 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 :- 20.5.2022
Arvind
