AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
24 paragraphs · 485 wordsN.S. Dhanik, J
This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 28.08.2014 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rishikesh,
Dehradun in Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 2014, “Gajendra Singh Pundir vs. State of Uttarakhandâ€, whereby the learned appellate court has
confirmed the judgment and order dated 15.01.2014 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, Dehradun in Criminal Trial
No. 1405 of 2011, whereby the revisionist was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 381 IPC and sentenced to undergo three years
simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-.
Learned counsel for the revisionist does not press this revision on merits. He submits his arguments only on the quantum of sentence. Since the
revisionist’s counsel does not challenge the conviction, this Court need not go into the merits of the case and, accordingly, the conviction in the
aforementioned offence is maintained.
Learned State Counsel does not seriously object to the prayer made on behalf of the revisionist. He fairly concedes that revisionist has served about
04 months 18 days in the jail.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that revisionist is a poor person and the incident relates to the year 2001. He further submits there is no
minimum sentence provided for the aforementioned offence. He submits that revisionist has already served about 04 months 18 days in the jail and
prays that the substantive sentence, awarded to the revisionist, may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
Since the revisionist has served 04 months 18 days imprisonment and also considering the nature of the case, I am of the considered view that this
much of sentence, as served out by the revisionist, is sufficient to serve the purpose.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist and the fact that the revisionist is a poor person and the incident relates to the
year 2001, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be sub-served. Consequently, the revision is dismissed on merit. However, it is partly
allowed on the quantum of sentence and the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by the revisionist. The sentence of fine is enhanced
from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 20,000/-. The enhanced amount of fine shall be deposited before the trial Court within one month from the date of production
of certified copy of this order. Amount, if any, deposited earlier shall be adjusted. If the revisionist fails to deposit the enhanced amount of fine within
one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order, he shall serve the additional two months simple imprisonment. The impugned
judgment and order stands modified to the extent indicated above.
Let a copy of this judgment and order along with the LCR be sent back to the Court concerned for doing the needful at the earliest.
