Allahabad High Court
Ramveer And Another 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. - 2203 of 2004
Revisionist :- Ramveer And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- B.P. Verma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
Heard Shri B. P. Verma, the 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 06.05.2004 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, Mathura in Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2002, Ramveer and another Vs. State of U.P., confirming the judgment and order dated 15.03.2002 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura in Case No. 1407 of 1992, State Vs. Ramveer and another, arsing out of Case Crime No. 82 of 1988, under Sections 380, 411 I.P.C., Police Station Refinery, District Mathura, whereby revisionists were convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 380 I.P.C. for one year 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 both the revisionists is one year simple imprisonment. 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 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. 40,000/- in the court of C.J.M. concerned. 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.
As in the present case, informant is Government, therefore, entire amount deposited by revisionists in the court of C.J.M. concerned, shall be transmitted to the State exchequer, which shall be used by the State Government in some health programme.
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.
