Harnam Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand

N.S. Dhanik, J

This criminal revision is preferred by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 25.01.2020 passed by the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khatima, in Criminal Appeal No. 185 of 2014, "Harnam Singh and others v. State of Uttarakhand", whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khatima has upheld the order dated 19.06.2014 passed by Additional Judicial Magistrate, Khatima in Criminal Case NO. 1293 of 2011 (1164/08) and confirmed the conviction of the revisionist for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC and was sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 1000/- and the revisionist has also been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC and was sentenced to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment.

Learned counsel would submit that the revisionist was on bail during trial as well as on appeal and he never misused the liberty given to him. It is also submitted that the revisionist has no criminal antecedent to his credit except the present case.

After arguing at some length, learned counsel for the revisionist limits his prayer only on the point of quantum of sentence and does not press this revision on merits. He is only submitting on the order 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 offences is maintained.

Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the appellant has undergone two months and twenty days in jail and there is no minimum sentence for the aforementioned offence.

Learned State Counsel fairly concedes that the revisionist has served two months and twenty days in the jail.

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is the poor person and the only bread earner of his family. He submits that revisionist has served two months and twenty days in the jail and prays that the substantive sentence, awarded to the revisionist, may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

Since the revisionist has served two months and twenty days imprisonment and also considering that there is no minimum sentence for the aforementioned offence, 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 parties and the fact that the revisionist has no criminal antecedent to his credit except the present case, 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 under Section 120B and 420 of IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by the revisionist. The sentence of fine of the revisionist is enhanced from Rs.1, 000/- to Rs. 5,000/- under Section 420 of IPC. The enhanced amount of fine shall be deposited before the trial Court within two weeks. Amount, if any, deposited earlier shall be adjusted. If the revisionist fails to deposit the enhanced amount of fine within two weeks from today, he shall serve the additional three months 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.

Let a certified copy of this order be issued to the learned counsel for the parties, today itself, on payment of usual charges.