Krishan Dev Sahani vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Sanjay Karol, Judge

Matter was taken up at 11 a.m. During the month of April, 1993, petitioner (accused) was found to have committed offences, punishable under Sections 420, 467 & 468 of the Indian Penal Code, regarding which FIR No. 147/93 dated 20.4.1993 (Ex. PW-18/A), was registered at Police Station, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. Police investigated the matter, which revealed that petitioner was guilty of having committed the aforesaid offences. Challan was presented in the Court for trial and petitioner was charged for having committed offences, punishable under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In order to establish its case, prosecution examined as many as twenty one witnesses and statement of the accused, u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also recorded, in which he pleaded false implication. The main accused was declared as proclaimed offender, against whom the prosecution had also registered a criminal complaint.

3 Appreciating the material on record, Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sundernagar, vide judgment dated 3.5.2002, in Case No. 93-11/94, titled as State versus Krishan Dev Sahani, convicted the petitioner (accused Krishan Dev Sahani) for having committed offences, punishable under Sections 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- for each of the offences and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period three months. However, accused stands acquitted of the offence, punishable u/s 467 of the Indian Penal Code.

Petitioner-accused assailed the same by filing an appeal. But however, such findings of fact and judgment of conviction and sentence were partly upheld by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, H.P., in terms of judgment dated 15.7.2005, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 7/2002, titled as Krishan Dev Sahani versus State of Himachal Pradesh. The lower Appellate Court set aside the conviction of the accused and acquitted him of offence, punishable u/s 468 of the Indian Penal Code, however, upheld the conviction and sentence for offence, punishable u/s 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, the present Revision Petition.

The matter was heard for some time.

Petitioner is present in the Court. He submits that though he does not assail the order of conviction, but however pleads that considering the long time gap since the occurrence of the offence and the other attending circumstances, a lenient view may be taken while imposing penalty of sentence and fine. He also states that now he is an old man of 71 years, suffering from heart ailment, asthma and undergoing medical treatment. He is also hard of hearing. He also states that he has no landed property and is factually and otherwise dependent upon his son for livelihood and sustenance. He also submits that it is his first offence and has never violated any law either prior to the occurrence of the incident in question or thereafter.

Record reveals that the offence took place in the month of April, 1993. On visible appearance also, petitioner appears to be a person of frail structure and health. He is an old man of 71 years and is also hard of hearing. He has no landed property. At this juncture, considering all attending facts and circumstances, no purpose would now be served by sending him behind bars at this point in time. Considering the long passage of time and in view of the overall attending circumstances, as stated herein above, I am of the considered view that a lenient view is ought to be taken in the matter and interest of justice would be served if the sentence of imprisonment of one year, is reduced till the rising of Court. Ordered accordingly. However, sentence with regard to fine is enhanced from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- for offence, punishable u/s 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner has already deposited the amount of fine, as ordered by the Court below. He undertakes to deposit the balance amount of fine before the trial Court within a period of four weeks from today. It is clarified that if the enhanced amount of fine is not so deposited within the aforesaid period, the petitioner-accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Hence, order of conviction and sentence as passed by the lower Appellate Court is modified accordingly.

With the aforesaid observations, present Revision Petition stands disposed of.