Allahabad High Court
Jugul Pasi And Another vs State Of U.P. on 26 May, 2022
Bench: Shamim Ahmed
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 93
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1470 of 2003
Revisionist :- Jugul Pasi And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- R.C. Yadav,Rajeshwar Tiwari,Sadhu Sharan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and Vinod Kant, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by 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 05.05.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.5, Ghazipur in Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 1998: Jugul Pasi Versus State dismissing the appeal and convicting and sentencing both the revisionists after confirming the order of the court below under Section 324/34 I.P.C. for a period of one year rigorous imprisonment arising out of judgment and order dated 07.02.1998 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazpur in Criminal Case No. 3294 of 1996:State Vs. Jugul Pasi and another under Section 324 I.P.C. of Police Station Zamania, District Ghazipur convicting and sentencing both the revisionist under Section 324/34 for a period of one year rigorous 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 revisionists is one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Sections 324/34 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 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 Additional Advocate General 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. 40,000/- in the court of C.J.M. concerned, out of which Rs. 35,000/- shall be paid to the informant of the case, and remaining Rs. 5,000/- 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 :- 26.5.2022
Arvind
