Allahabad High Court
Ram Dhani Gupta vs State Of U.P. And Another on 26 May, 2022
Bench: Shamim Ahmed
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 93
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 655 of 2002
Revisionist :- Ram Dhani Gupta
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- V.C. Katiyar,R.K.S. Chauhan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri Vinod Kant, the 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 13.05.2002 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sonbhadra in Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 1999, Ram Dhani Gupta Vs. State of U.P., confirming the judgment and order dated 11.11.1999 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Duddhi, Sonbhadra in Criminal Case No. 1676 of 1991, State Vs. Ram Dhani Gupta, under Sections 354, 323 I.P.C., Police Station Shakti Nagar, District Sonbhadra, whereby revisionist was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 323 I.P.C. for six months simple imprisonment and under Section 354 I.P.C. for six months simple imprisonment with a total fine of Rs. 1,000/-, 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 awarded to the revisionist is six months simple imprisonment in each of the offence. The rest of the sentence of the revisionist be converted into fine and the same shall not be treated as enhancement of sentence. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the revisionist is on bail, he was on bail during trial and has not committed any other offence. He has already undergone a sufficient period in jail.
Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that revisionist is very poor and his financial condition is very bad, therefore, he may be directed to deposit a minimum amount which this Court may deem fit and proper.
Learned Additional Advocate General opposed the prayer for quashing of the impugned judgments and orders and has submitted that 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 conviction and sentence of the revisionist is hereby upheld, but taking into 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 sentence be converted into fine.
Accordingly, as a special case, the revisionist is directed to pay and deposit a total fine of Rs. 20,000/- in the court of C.J.M. concerned, out of which Rs. 15,000/- shall be paid to the informant of the case, and remaining Rs. 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 payment of fine as directed above, the revisionist shall serve out 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
Mustaqeem.
