Sheo Prasad vs State of U.P.

P.K. Jain, J.—Heard Shri Akhilesh Kumar Tewari, holding brief of Shri Ashok Bhushan, learned Counsel for the Revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

Revision is pressed or the question of sentence only. Trial court convicted the revisionist u/s 323, I.P.C., the revisionist was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months which was affirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 1984, decided by the Special Judge (Economic Offences)/Additional Sessions, Allahabad vide judgment and order, dated 28.8.84.

It is contended that the revisionist was a young man of 32 years at the time of filing of the revision, the incident had occurred about 18 years back and the revisionist was on ordeal of trial for five years. No untoward incident had occurred since after the alleged incident and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in case he is sent to Jail.

The revisionist suffered imprisonment for about a week after dismissal of his appeal and was released on bail by this Court. Considering the facts that the incident occurred about 18 years back no untoward incident is reported since after the occurrence, sentence of imprisonment already undergone and the fine of Rs. 250 would meet the end of justice.

The revision is, therefore, partly allowed and conviction of the Appellant u/s 323, I.P.C. recorded by the court below, is upheld. The sentence is reduced to a period of imprisonment already undergone and fine of Rs. 250 and in default of payment of fine, imprisonment for 15 days.