Putti vs State of U.P.

Raj Mani Chauhan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as perused the documents available on record. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties the revision is disposed of at the admission stage.

This Criminal Revision u/s 397(1)/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ''Code'') has been preferred by the accused-revisionist-Putti against the judgment and order dated 21.8.2010 passed by Virendra Kumar, HJS, learned Special Judge (Ayodhya Prakaran)/Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No. 304/2007 (Maya Ram and Ors. v. State of U.P.) whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has partly allowed the appeal filed by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 02.11.2007 passed by the learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow in Criminal Case No. 1876/1996 arising out of Crime No. 391/92, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Gazipur, District Lucknow whereby the learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate has held the accused guilty u/s 452, 506(2), 323 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each and fine of Rs. 500/- u/s 452 IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months each u/s 506(2) IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- each u/s 323/34 IPC failing which to undergo further two months additional imprisonment each. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while partly allowing the appeal has confirmed the finding of conviction recorded by the learned Magistrate but modified the sentence awarded by the learned Magistrate u/s 452 IPC reducing the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of one year to six months.

From a perusal of the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as well as the learned Magistrate, it appears that the finding of both the courts below are based on proper appreciation of the prosecution evidence which cannot be interfered with by this Court in revision while invoking its revisonal power u/s 397 of the Code unless the finding is perversed. This Court being revisional court cannot re-appreciate the evidence at this stage.

Learned Counsel for the accused-revisionist failed to show any perversity in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. However, he submits that the accused have already undergone more than month''s in jail and they are still in jail, therefore, this Hon''ble Court may take a lenient view with regard to the sentence awarded by the Trial Court.

Learned A.G.A. opposed the revision.

Considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

As regards, the finding of the Trial Court, no interference is required.

However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case as well as nature of offence, the sentence awarded by the Trial Court to the accused may be modified by reducing the sentence to the period already undergone by the accused in jail and the amount of fine may be enhanced from 500/- to Rs. 3,000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo three months'' simple imprisonment. The revision may accordingly be partly allowed.

The revision is, therefore, partly allowed and the sentence awarded by the Trial Court is reduced from six months rigorous imprisonment to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the accused-revisionist in jail and the amount of fine of Rs. 500/- imposed by the learned Magistrate to each accused is enhanced to Rs. 3,000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo three months'' simple imprisonment.

The accused are directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.

The accused are allowed 30 days'' time to deposit the amount of fine imposed by this Court i.e. Rs. 3,000/- against the accused-revisionist from the date of his release, failing which he will be arrested immediately and sent to jail to serve out the sentence of three months'' simple imprisonment awarded by this Court.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the Trial Court for strict compliance.