Allahabad High Court
Kalloo vs State Of U.P. on 13 February, 2025
Author: Subhash Chandra Sharma
Bench: Subhash Chandra Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:9554
Court No. - 14
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2780 of 2008
Appellant :- Kalloo and Another
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- S.H. Ibrahim
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
2. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 15.11.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Unnao by which appellants were convicted and sentenced under Section 5 of Uttar Pradesh Electricity Wire & Transformer (Prevention of Theft) Act, 1976, for a period of one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in case of default of payment of fine further undergo one month additional rigorous imprisonment, involved in Session Trial Nos. 252 of 2008 arising out of Case Crime No. 122 of 2007, Police Station Bangarmau, District Unnao.
3. Facts in brief are that on 24.12.2006 appellants were arrested by the police on the basis of information received from Mukhbir and 39 kg Alumunium wire was recovered from their possession. During search of person of appellants Charas and Ganja weighing 150 gm, 100 gm and 500 gm of Ganja was also recovered. Fard recovery was prepared and cases were registered as Crime No. 320, 321 and 822 under Section 20B N.D.P.S. Act and also connected to the Crime No. 122 of 2007 under Section 3/5 U.P. Electricity Wire and Transformer (Prevention of Theft) Act, 1976.
4. After investigation charge sheet was filed by the I.O. against the appellants.
5. Learned trial court framed the charge against the appellant which was read over and explained to the accused person but he denied and claimed for trial. All the cases were tried and decided together being related to the same incident.
6. The prosecution examined P.W. 1, S.I. Shyam Singh; P.W. 2, Constable, Satya Prakash; P.W. 3, Constable, Ram Sagar Mishra; P.W.4, S.I. Ram Babu Gautam; P.W. 5, Constable Ayub Khan.
7. After conclusion of prosecution evidence statements of appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they denied the prosecution version and did not adduce any evidence in defence.
8. After hearing the arguments for the prosecution as well as the defence, the impugned judgment and order was passed by the learned trial court in which the appellants were convicted and sentenced. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order present appeal has been preferred.
9. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the incident took place in the year 2006 and till now 18 years have elapsed and appellant no. 1, Kalloo has become 58 and appellant no. 2, Ram Bhajan has become 80 years old, therefore, no purpose will be served by sending them to jail. There is no any subsequent conduct of the appellants that they had committed similar offence, therefore, request to reduce the sentence as undergone and award fine.
10. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid.
11. On considering the facts and submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, it appears that the incident took place in the year 2006 in which electric wire was said to be recovered from the possession of the appellants. The quantity of wire was not too huge and appellants were aged about 40 and 60 years at that time and now they have become 58 and 80 years old. No better purpose will be served by sending the appellants to jail but it will be adequate to reduce the sentence undgergone by them and to impose fine amounting to Rs. 10,000/- which will be paid by the appellants proportionately.
12. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and the sentence awarded against the appellant no. 1, Kalloo and appellant no. 2, Ram Bhajan are reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by them and they are to deposit Rs. 10,000/- proportionately before the concerned court within a period of 45 days from today.
13. Trial court record be sent back to the concerned court for compliance.
Order Date :- 13.2.2025
Suraj Srivastav
