Allahabad High Court
Ram Adhar And Others vs State Of U.P. on 25 May, 2022
Bench: Shamim Ahmed
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 93
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1087 of 2002
Revisionist :- Ram Adhar And Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ram Krishna
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and Shri Abhishek Shukla, the learned A.G.A.-I for the State.
The present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 23.07.2002 passed by learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 90 of 2001, Ram Adhar and others Vs. State of U.P., confirming the judgment and order dated 03.08.2001 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, (Court No. 9), Allahabad in Case No. 1619 of 1997, State Vs. Ram Adhar and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 119 of 1985, under Sections 323/34, 325/34, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Meja, District Allahabad, whereby revisionist were convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 323/34 I.P.C. for six months simple imprisonment, under Section 325/34 I.P.C. for one year imprisonment and under Section 506(2) I.P.C. for one year simple imprisonment with a total fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, 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 revisionists submits that maximum sentence provided to the revisionists is one year simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Sections 325/34 and 506(2) I.P.C., respectively. The rest of the sentence of the revisionists be converted into fine and the same shall not be treated as enhancement of 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.-I 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 the conviction and sentence of the revisionists is hereby upheld, but taking into 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 sentence be 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 :- 25.5.2022
Mustaqeem./Arvind
