Alakh Singh and Others vs State of Bihar

These two applications have been beard together and this judgment will govern both of them. Criminal Revision No. 546 of 1962 has been filed by the four convicted persons and it has been admitted only on the question of sentence. Criminal Revision No. 637 of 1962 has been Bled by the informant of this case, praying that the accused persons may be asked to show cause why the sentences of imprisonment imposed on them by the trial Court for their convictions u/s 452 of the Indian Penal Code should not be restored.

The facts upon which these two applications have been filed are, shortly speaking, as follows 3 In G. R. Case No. 1935 of 1957, the four accused persona, who are the petitioners in Criminal Revision No. 548 of 1902, were convicted by a Magistrate u/s 452 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six mouths. Over and above this imprisonment, each of them was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 100, in default of payment of which, each of them was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. In addition, three of the accused persons, namely Alakh Singh, Bindeshwar Singh and Ambika Singh, were also convicted u/s 323 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. On appeal to the Court of appeal below, all the convictions were affirmed; but, with regard to the sentences, the learned Judge, on appeal made some alteration. The sentence passed u/s 452 of the Penal Code by the learned trial Magistrate was altered in the way that each of the convicted persons was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 500 (in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months), in place of the sentence of rigorous imprisonment passed by the trial Court. It seems that the sentence of fine of Rs. 100 each for the conviction u/s 452 was not interfered with. Then, the appellate Court reduced the prison sentences imposed by the trial Court u/s 323 to a fine of Rs. 50 each, in default of payment of which each of the three convicted persons was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The four petitioners of Criminal Revision No. 546 of 1962 thereupon came to this Court praying that their convictions and the sentences passed against them may be set aside. As indicated above, this application has been admitted on the question of sentence only, The informant has also come up, as indicated above, in Criminal Revision No. 637 of 1962.

Mrs. Seth appearing for the petitioners of Criminal Revision No. 546 of 1962 has contended that what the appellate Court had done in altering the sentences awarded by the trial Court had really amounted to an enhancement of their sentences, Mr. G. S. Prasad appearing for the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 637 of 1962 has, on the other hand, contended that after a conviction u/s 452 of the Indian Penal Code, a prison sentence was compulsory, and the learned Judge, on appeal, was in error in altering the sentence of Imprisonment to one of fine only. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties in these two cases, we are of the option that the learned Judge on appeal had committed an error of law in imposing only sentences of fine after up. holding the convictions of the four accused persons u/s 452 of the Indian Penal Code. We, there-fore, propose to alter the sentences passed on the four convicted persons thus : All the four convicted persons must be awarded sentence of imprisonment for their convictions u/s 452 of the Indian Penal Code, and it appears that all of them were in fail for sometime at least for their convictions recorded by the trial Court on the 18th September, 1961. Therefore, the period of imprisonment undergone by the four convicted persons will be taken to be sufficient sentence for their convictions u/s 452 of the Penal Code. Over and above this, each of the convicted persons is fined to the extent of Rs. 200, for their convictions u/s 452 of the Code in default of payment of which each of them must suffer two months'' rigorous imprisonment. So far as the convictions and the sentence of fine imposed u/s 323 of the Penal Code are concerned, no interference is necessary. If the fines are realised, the informant, named Bhagwat Pandey, should be given an amount of Rs. 200 as compensation. It may be noted that Mrs. Sethi did not advance any argument against the convictions recorded against the four accused persons.

The two applications are thus disposed of.