Uttarakhand High Court
Som Prakash Dabral vs State Of Uttarakhand on 14 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No.291 of 2013
Som Prakash Dabral .... Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ..... Respondents
Present: Mr. B.M. Pingal, Advocate, for the revisionist.
Mr. Subhash Tyagi Bhardwaj, Dy. A.G. with Ms. Shivani Gangwar,
Brief Holder, for the State.
Hon'ble Lok Pal Singh, J.
This criminal revision is directed against the
judgment and order dated 20.11.2009 passed by the
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kotdwar,
District Pauri Garhwal in Criminal Case No.449 of
2009 "State Vs. Som Prakash", whereby the
revisionist/accused has been convicted under Section
408 of IPC, and has been sentenced to undergo two
years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of
Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) under Section
408 of IPC. Against the order dated 20.11.2009, the
revisionist filed an appeal before the Additional District
and Session Judge, Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal,
which too has been dismissed vide order dated
15.10.2013.
2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that the first
information report was lodged against the
revisionist/accused under Section 409 of IPC, at Police
Station Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal alleging that
the revisionist/accused has fraudulently withdrawn
the money from society's account. After investigation,
the police submitted the charge-sheet against the
revisionist/accused before the court concerned.
3. In order to prove its case, prosecution got
examined as many as three witnesses. PW1 Sate Singh
Chauhan, PW2 Ramesh Chandra Bidla and PW3 S.I.
Mr. M.M.S. Bisht, have been examined. Thereafter, the
statements of revisionist were recorded under Section
313 of Cr.PC. In reply, he denied the prosecution story.
4. After appreciating the entire evidence on
record, the trial court convicted the accused/revisionist
under Section 408 of IPC and sentenced him
accordingly. Feeling aggrieved, the revisionist preferred
the appeal. The appellate court did not find favour to
the revisionist and maintained the conviction and
sentence recorded by the trial court.
5. Mr. B.M. Pingal, learned counsel for the
revisionist would confine his argument qua the
quantum of sentence only. He would submit that the
incident pertains to the year 1993. Since then, almost
27 years have elapsed and the revisionist is
consistently facing mental agony due to the pendency
of the criminal case against him. In such
circumstances, learned counsel would submit that
lenient view may be taken to reduce the sentence. He,
however, would submit that if the Court finds
desirable, fine awarded by the trial court, may be
enhanced.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the entire record.
7. Having re-appreciated the entire evidence on
record, and after considering the submissions of
learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any
illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and
orders passed by the courts below. The trial court as
well as the appellate court has rightly convicted the
revisionist under the aforesaid section. The conviction
of the revisionist is, therefore, affirmed. Now, this Court
has to consider the submissions of learned counsel for
the revisionist on the point of sentence only.
8. Having considered the submission of learned
counsel for the revisionist on the point of sentence, in
my view, no useful purpose would be served by sending
the revisionist to jail after a lapse of 27 years of the
incident, as such the sentence deserves to be reduced
to the period already undergone along with fine of
Rs.15,000/-.
9. Accordingly, revision is partly allowed by
affirming the conviction recorded by the courts below
under Section 408 of IPC. However, for the reasons
stated above, sentence part of the impugned orders is
modified to the extent that the revisionist is sentenced
for the period of sentence undergone alongwith fine of
Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) which will be
deposited by him before the trial court within one
month from today. The revisionist will be entitled to
adjustment of the fine already deposited by him, if any.
In case of failure to deposit the fine as directed above,
sentence recorded by the courts below shall stand
revived.
10. Revisionist is on bail. He need not surrender
unless required in any other case. His bail bonds are
cancelled and sureties are discharged.
11. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the
trial court forthwith for compliance. Lower court record
be also sent back.
(Lok Pal Singh, J.)
14.01.2021
Nitesh
