Allahabad High Court
Tarachand 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. - 2269 of 2003
Revisionist :- Tarachand
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Someshwari Prasad,Vivek Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Vinod Kant, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned AGA-I for the State.
This revision has been preferred by the accused-revisionist whose conviction has been upheld by judgement and order dated 16.8.2003 passed Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court Ist, Jaunpur in Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 2001, confirming judgement dated 4.1.2001 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur in Criminal Case No. 502 of 1999 (State Versus Tarachand), under Sections 170, 420, 465 and 468 I.P.C., Police Station Zafrabad, District Jaunpur, whereby the revisionist was convicted and sentenced to undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.2000/- 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 revisionist submits that maximum sentence provided to the revisionist is two years for offence under Sections 170, 420, 465 and 468 IPC. The rest of the sentence of the revisionist be converted into fine and the same shall not be treated as enhancement of the sentence. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the revisionist has undergone a substantial period of punishment and now the revisionist is in jail.
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 revisionist has already undergone sufficient period in jail as under trial and after conviction by the lower appellate court, his rest of the sentence be converted into a fine.
Accordingly, revisionist is directed to pay and deposit 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 and 5,000/- shall go to the State. If the revisionist deposits the aforesaid amount of fine, he 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 revisionist 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 :- 26.5.2022
SA
