Shiv Singh vs State of U.P.

V.P. Mathur, J.—The revisionist was convicted on a charge u/s 39/40 of the Electricity Act read with Section 379 IPC and sentenced to six months'' rigorous imprisonment by Mr. G.K. Chaturvedi, Special Judicial Magistrate, Economic Offence, Badaun, vide, his order dated 8-3-1984. Criminal Appeal No. 88 of 1984 was preferred and it came up for hearing before Mr. K.G. Rastogi, the then Sessions Judge of Badaun, who upheld the conviction, but altered the sentence. The learned Judge granted to the applicant the benefit of the First Offenders'' Probation Act. But simultaneously he also directed him to further pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, providing rigorous imprisonment for the three months in default. Against this order, the present revision was filed, which has been admitted by this Court only on the question of sentence.

No arguments have been advanced before me on the merits of the case and since the facts of the matter stand established by two concurrent judgments of the two courts below, I do not propose to enter into the same. The revision is before me only to consider the question of sentence. Since the learned Counsel argues that he has nothing to say against the appellate order granting benefit of the Probation Act and directing execution of the personal bonds, made by Mr. K.G. Rastogi, the then Sessions Judge of Moradabad on 27-11-1984, his entire argument is against the additional order through which the applicant has been directed to pay a fine of Rs. 500 (Rs. Five hundred) in addition and he contends that this is illegal.

After hearing the learned Counsel on both sides, I am in complete agreement with the learned Counsel for the applicant-revisionist. Once the benefit of the Probation Act was extended and bonds for a fixed period were directed to be submitted, the matter should have ended there. The learned Sessions Judge went beyond his jurisdiction in further directing a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of the payment of the same, the sentence of imprisonment.

Therefore, this revision is allowed to this effect that the conviction of the revisionist for the offence punishable u/s 39/40 of the Electricity Act read with Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code as made by the two Courts below shall stand and so also the order passed, by the Sessions Judge of Budaun on 27-11-1984 to the extent that he has called upon the applicant to furnish bonds to keep peace and has fixed the amount of the bonds and bas thus granted the benefit of the Probation Act to the applicant. The subsequent order calling upon applicant to further pay a sum of Rs. 500/- (Rs. Five hundred) by way of fine and to undergo rigorous imprisonment in default of the payment of fine, shall stand quashed.