High CourtsSingle Bench

Radhey Shyam Chaurasia vs State of U.P.

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 1 April 1997 · Citation: (1997) 21 ACR 584

HON’BLE JUDGES
C.A. Rahim, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 379, 411
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No. 1248 of 1984
Ask AI about this case

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

5 paragraphs · 430 words

C.A. Rahim, J.—This Revision has been directed against the judgment and order passed by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Mirzapur, on 5.6.1984 in Criminal Appeal No. 88 of 1984. By that order he dismissed the appeal preferred against the conviction and sentence passed by Sri P.K. Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate, Robertsganj, Mirzapur, on 1.5.1984 in Case No. 298 of 1983 u/s 379, I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years and a fine of Rs. 1,000.

2.

Sri S.P. Singh, appearing for the applicant has challenged the sentence only. He has submitted that since the matter is pending since 1984, there should be remission of the substantive sentence and be converted to pay fine only.

3.

The prosecution case, in short, is that the applicant picked up Rs. 173 from the bag of the informant who was a conductor of the Bus. He was caught then and there and lodged to the police station, on which a case was registered. He was prosecuted u/s 379/411, I.P.C. but at the conclusion of the trial he was convicted and sentenced in the aforesaid manner. It is true that there was delay in disposing of the case and the matter is pending in this Court for more than 12 years but considering the nature of the offence that it is a case of pickpocket in open day light and that too within a bus, also considering the daring attitude of the applicant in committing the crime, I do not consider that the substantive sentence be substituted to fine only but considering the delay a lenient view with regard to the sentence of imprisonment can be taken. With that view of the matter I find that the sentence of imprisonment to the extent of three months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500 (Rs. Five hundred) shall meet the ends of justice.

4.

The Revision, is therefore, dismissed. The conviction u/s 379, I.P.C. is hereby confirmed but the sentence of imprisonment of two years R.I. is reduced to three months R.I. The sentence to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 is also reduced to Rs. 500 (Rs. Five hundred) only, to be paid within two months from this date, in default he shall suffer further imprisonment to one month''s R.I. The bail bond of the accused-Appellant is cancelled. He must surrender within one month to serve out the remaining period of the sentence otherwise the trial court shall issue process for his arrest and detention in imprisonment to undergo the sentence.

With the above observations and modification of sentence the Revision is disposed of.