Allahabad High Court
Mahesh vs State Of U.P. on 2 May, 2024
Author: Renu Agarwal
Bench: Renu Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:78425
Reserved on 21.03.2024
Delivered on 02.05.2024
Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 30 of 2002
Revisionist :- Mahesh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ram Raj Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal,J.
1. The present Criminal Revision under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the Judgment and Order dated 15.12.2021 passed by the learned District Judge, Baghpat, in Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 2001(Mahesh Vs. State), confirming the sentence of the revisionist to six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 380 IPC and three months simple imprisonment under Section 411 IPC. which arised out from the judgment and order dated 21.07.2001 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, in Case No.2014 of 2000, arising out of Case Crime No.153 of 1995, under Sections 380/411, I.P.C., Police Station Ami Nagar Sarai, District Baghpat, by which the revisionist was sentenced to six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 380 IPC and three months simple imprisonment under Section 411 IPC. However, both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. Wrapping the facts in brief on 27.10.1995 the revisionist along with one other co-accused person broke open the house of the informant and stole certain articles from the house of the complainant. The present revisionist was identified by the informant himself. FIR was lodged on the next day i.e. on 28.10.1995 and the revisionist was arrested by the police along with stolen articles.
3. After investigation charge sheet was submitted against the revisionist under Section 380/411 IPC. Charges were framed and read over the accused abjured from the charges and claimed to be tried.
4. In support of the prosecution's case the prosecution produced P.W-1 Satish Kumar who is the informant of the instant case, P.W-2 Smt. Balish w/o Satish Kumar and P.W.-3 Radheyshyam. P.Ws 1 and 2 gave description of the stolen articles and identified the articles recovered from the possession of the revisionist. P.W-1 also identified the present revisionist as one of the persons who break open his house and stole certain articles.
5. Learned trial court found that on the basis of prosecution evidence held the revisionist guilty for offence under Section 380/411 IPC and sentenced the revisionist for maximum simple imprisonment for a period of six month along with fine to the tune of Rs. 500/ by order dated 21.07.2001.
6. Being aggrieved with the order dated 21.07.2001 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat the present revisionist preferred and appeal before the appellate court bearing Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 2001 which came to be dismissed by order dated 15.12.2001.
7. Being aggrieved with the judgment and order dated 21.07.2001 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat and the order dated 15.12.2001 passed by the appellate court the revisionist has approached this Court by way of filing the present revision.
8. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the material available on record.
9. Learned counsel for the revisionist did not disputed the order of conviction and he argued only to commute the sentence to the period already undergone by the revisionist. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that revisionist had already remained in jail for about 45 to 50 days in the instant case. He is now an old age person. He may be released on first offender. However, he is ready to deposit the amount of fine whichever be fixed by Court.
10. From the perusal of record it is evident that the allegation levelled against the revisionist is that he is involved in stealing Seven sarees, two peticoats, Seven blowse and one shirt from the house of the complainant after breaking open his house, the present revisionist was arrested along with the stolen articles, the revisionist was identified by the complainant himself. This is the first offence of the revisionist, no other criminal accident of the of the revisionist is brought on record. The incident is old one of the year 1995. The accused has turned mature man of 55 years. Nothing is brought on record by the State that accused is involved in any of the criminal antecedent since after the date of present incident. Hence this Court is of the view that the interest of justice will be served if the period of incarceration is commuted to the period already undergone by the revisionist and the fine is enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.5,000/-, it will substantiate the purpose of law.
11. In these circumstances, the judgment and order passed by the trial court dated 21.07.2021 and the judgement and order of appellant court dated 15.12.2001, are hereby by confirmed and the revision is partly allowed. The period of incarceration is commuted to the period already undergone by the revisionist, however, the judgement and order is modified to the extent that the fine is enhanced from Rs.500/- to Rs.5,000/- under section 380/411 IPC, which will substantiate the purpose of law. The revisionist shall deposit the fine within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order in the court concerned.
12. Certified copy of the judgment be sent to the court below concerned for necessary action. Bail bonds of the revisionist are cancelled and the sureties are discharged.
13. Lower court record, if any, be sent back to the District Judgeship, Baghpat, immediately.
(Renu Agarwal,J)
Order Date :- 2.5.2024
VKG
