Uttarakhand High Court
Vishaluddin vs State Of Uttarakhand on 5 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 666 of 2022
Vishaluddin ....Revisionist
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ..... Respondent
Mr. Deep Prakash Bhatt, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. V.K. Jemini, D.A.G. for the State of Uttarakhand.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The instant revision is preferred against the
following:-
(A) Judgment and order dated
04.12.2021,passed in Criminal Case No.226 of 2014,
State of Uttarakhand Vs. Vishaluddin, by the court of
Judicial Magistrate, I Class, Khatima, District Udham
Singh Nagar ("the case"). By it, the revisionist has been
convicted under Section 411 IPC and sentenced to 2
years' imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default
of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a further
period of 3 months.
(B) Judgement and order dated
29.08.2022, passed in Criminal Appeal No.35 of 2022,
Vishaluddin Vs. State of Uttarakhand, by the court of
Additional Sessions Judge, Khatima, District Udham
Singh Nagar ("the appeal"). By it, the appeal has been
dismissed and the judgment and order dated
04.12.2021, passed in the case, has been affirmed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. This revision was admitted to the extent of
examining the adequacy of sentence.
4. According to the FIR, a theft was
committed in the night of 09.01.2014, in the house of
the informant. A report was lodged. According to the
prosecution, on 12.01.2014, the stolen articles were
recovered from the possession of the revisionist and
others. After investigation, chargesheet was submitted
and cognizance taken. It is the basis of the case.
3. The revisionist was charged under Section
457, 380 and 411 IPC , but he was convicted and
sentenced for the offence under Section 411 IPC alone.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist would
submit that the revisionist is a much poor man; he has a
family to look after; he has small children. Therefore, the
sentence may be reduced.
5. A report was sought from learned State
Counsel. Learned State Counsel gives a statement that
as per Probation Officer's Report, the economic condition
of the revisionist is very poor; he has 3 small children
and a wife back at home; his wife works as a labourer to
earn the livelihood of the family; nothing adverse has
been reported by the Probation Officer.
6. During the course of argument, learned
counsel for the revisionist would submit that the
revisionist has also been convicted in another case
under Section 411 IPC.
7. Having considered the another conviction
of the revisionist, this Court refrains to consider
probation for the revisionist.
8. The impugned judgment, passed in the
case, reveals that the revisionist was enlarged on bail on
11.04.2014, which means the revisionist was in custody
for about three months then. He has been in custody
now for more than 4 months. Total, the revisionist has
been in custody for more than 7 months in this case.
9. This Court is of the view that the interest of
justice would be served if the punishment is limited to
the imprisonment, which the revisionist has already
undergone in the matter. Keeping in view the economic
condition of the revisionist, the amount of fine may be
reduced to Rs. 1000/-.
10. The revision is partly allowed. The
conviction of the revisionist under Section 411 IPC is
upheld.
11. The revisionist is sentenced to the period of
imprisonment, which he has already undergone with a
fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of which he shall undergo
15 days' further simple imprisonment.
12. The impugned judgments and orders are
modified in terms of sentence as indicated hereinabove.
13. Let a copy of this judgment be sent
immediately to the court concerned and to the jail,
where the revisionist is confined.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
05.01.2023
Ravi Bisht
