Arjun Singh vs State (Cbi)
2004 Latest Caselaw 239 Del

JUDGMENT

R.S.Sodhi, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 03.05.2001 of the Additional Sessions Judge, whereby the learned Judge in Criminal Appeal No.120/1998, while upholding the conviction under Section 420, 463, 471, 461 and 120-B IPC of the appellant/petitioner herein, from the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate dated 20.12.1984, has converted the imprisonment of R.I. for three years to one of fine. The learned Judge has observed that the petitioner herein is too old to undergo imprisonment and that the trial itself has taken more than 16 years to complete. He consequently modified the sentence to that of fine instead of imprisonment, namely, under Section 420 IPC the fine imposed was Rs.1,05,000/- (rupees one lakh five thousand) and in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for two years; under Section 467 IPC the fine was Rs.1,02,000/- (rupees one lakh two thousand) and in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for two years; under Section 471 the fine was Rs. 52,000/- (rupees fifty two thousand) and in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for one year; under Section 201 IPC the fine was (Rs.51,000/-) rupees fifty one thousand and in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for one year. Entire fine of Rs.3,10,000/- (rupees three lakh ten thousand) was required to be deposited within a period of three weeks from the date of judgment and in case of default the petitioner was required to undergo the sentence of imprisonment as stated above.

2. Counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the judgment on merits but confines himself only to the question of sentence. He submits that this is a strange case where the trial court had sentenced the petitioner for three years together with a fine of Rs.9,000 (rupees nine thousand) and in default of payment of fine to further undergo sentence of imprisonment for one year. In appeal the petitioner who was too old to undergo imprisonment has been sentenced to a fine of rupees three lakh ten thousand on the whole and sentenced to undergo seven years R.I. in default. Counsel submits that the order is a traversity of justice and should not be allowed to stand.

3. Counsel for CBI on the other hand submits that the law as it stands today permits such sentencing and, therefore, the petitioner whether he is too old or not is bound to undergo seven years of imprisonment if he does not have means to discharge his fine, even though the initial sentence was three years.

4. I have heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner cannot discharge his sentence of fine due to poverty and continues to languish in jail for two-and-a-half years. It is indeed a hard case where poverty is defeating the ends of justice.In the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that the petitioner who has already undergone more than two-and-a-half years of substantive sentence should be released on the period of imprisonment already undergone. I, therefore, modify the order of sentence to a period of imprisonment undergone.

5. With this modification Crl.Rev.P.327/2001 is allowed and disposed of.