Amroo and Others vs State of U.P.

Raj Mani Chauhan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the accused-revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the State.

This application has been moved by the accused-revisionists for extension of time to deposit the amount of fine in continuation of the Court''s order dated 16.02.2000.

The submission of learned Counsel for the revisionists is that accused were tried by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri in Criminal Case No. 1833 of 1994, State v. Amroo and Ors. Crime No. 60 of 1988, under Sections 323/34, 324/34 I.P.C., Police Station Palia, District Kheri, consequently, they were convicted and sentenced vide order dated 11.09.1997. Accused being aggrieved by the impugned order preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri which was dismissed by him vide judgment and order dated 16.06.1998. Accused thereafter preferred revision before this Court against the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge which was dismissed on 16.02.2000 in the following terms:

Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. The sentence awarded to the revisionists is modified in the manner that the revisionists are held guilty of the offence under Sections 323/34 I.P.C. and are sentenced to the imprisonment already undergone and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for a period of one month each. The revisionists are further held guilty of the offence u/s 324/34 I.P.C. and are sentenced to the imprisonment already undergone and to pay a fine of Rs. 1500/-each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for a period of three months each.

The revisionists are given three months time to deposit the amount of fine aforesaid in the learned lower court.

Accused did not deposit the amount of fine within the time allowed by the Court. Accused were arrested in execution of warrant issued by the trial court on 06.09.2010 and they were sent to jail to serve out the awarded sentence in lieu of the non payment of fine. Learned Counsel for the revisionist submits that the maximum sentence awarded by the trial court is of three months in default of payment of fine. Accused has already served out the sentence more than two months in jail. Since the accused did not get any information about the order passed by this Court, therefore, they had not deposited the amount of fine. Now they are ready to deposit the fine amount, but the trial court is not accepting the fine as they could not deposit the fine within the time allowed by the court. Therefore, accused-revisionists may be permitted to deposit the amount of fine.

Learned A.G.A. opposed the said prayer.

Considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A This Court had dismissed the revision vide order dated 16.02.2000. Now after long gap of 10 years, the accused-revisionists are guilty of latches. They can not be allowed to take the benefit of their own latches. The accused has already served out the sentence of two months in jail. Grounds set forth by the accused revisionists for extension of time do not appear to be sufficient.

The application is, therefore, rejected.