Uttarakhand High Court
Angrej Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 31 March, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 127 of 2023
Angrej Singh ...........Revisionist
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and another ............Respondents
Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. B.P.S. Mer, Brief Holder for the State.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this revision is made to the
following:-
(i) Order dated 07.10.2016, passed in Criminal
Case No.1162 of 2015, State vs. Angrej Singh
by the court of Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh
Nagar (for short, "the case"), by which, the
revisionist has been convicted under Section
411 IPC and sentenced to two years rigorous
imprisonment with a fine of `5,000/-; in
default of fine, the revisionist has been
directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
a further period of two months and;
(ii) Judgment and order dated 29.03.2017,
passed in Criminal Appeal No.188 of 2016,
Angrej Singh alias Sonu vs. State of
Uttarakhand, by the court of Third Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Rudrapur,
District Udham Singh Nagar (for short, "the
appeal"), by which, the judgment and order
dated 07.10.2016, passed in the case has
been upheld.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. The present revision has been admitted on
the question of sentence alone.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist would
submit that the revisionist is a very poor man; he was
implicated in many cases. In other cases, in his appeal,
he has been punished with the imprisonment, which he
had already undergone.
5. It is submitted that, in fact, when arrested,
the revisionist was in jail for about two months and now,
at present, he is in custody since 21.01.2023.
6. Learned State counsel admits these facts.
7. According to the case, a motorcycle was
found missing on 16.07.2010. A report was lodged by its
owner. It is the prosecution case that on 26.07.2010, the
motorcycle was recovered from the possession of the
applicant. The record of the court below is before the
Court, which reveals that, in fact, in the instant case,
the revisionist moved bail application on 16.10.2010. It
means, he was in custody then also for more than one
month. At present, the revisionist is already in custody
for more than two months.
8. One of the difficult tasks in the criminal
justice system is award of an adequate sentence. Instant
is a case of theft of a motorcycle. The revisionist has
been in custody for more than three months now. It has
not been brought to the notice that the revisionist has
ever been convicted earlier.
9. Having considered the nature of offence,
the position of the applicant and other attending factors,
this Court is of the view that the interest of justice would
be served, if the revisionist is sentenced to the period of
imprisonment, which he has already undergone in this
case.
10. The conviction of the revisionist is upheld,
but the sentence is modified to the term of
imprisonment, which the revisionist has already
undergone in the case.
11. The impugned judgment and orders are
modified to the extent as indicated above.
12. The revisionist is in jail. Let he be set free
forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.
13. Let a copy of this judgment be forwarded to
the court concerned and concerned jail today itself
through such mode that the revisionist may not be
unnecessarily detained in this case any further.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
31.03.2023
Sanjay
