Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 894 (PAT)

Ram Chandra Shukla v. State of Bihar

2013-07-29

ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI

body2013
Judgment In spite of granting ample opportunity to the petitioner, none turned up on behalf of the petitioner to argue and on account thereof exercising the power envisaged under Section 397, 401 of the Cr. P.C., the records have been minutely gone through with the assistance of learned Additional P.P. 2. While admitting the instant revision on 17.09.2002, it has been confined relating to sentence only. 3. Petitioner Ram Chandra Shukla was convicted vide judgment dated 13.02.1998 passed by Sri Binod Kumar Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Buxar in G.R.No.179 of 1983/Trial No.251 of 1998 whereby and whereunder he has been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 409 of the IPC, 420 of the IPC and has been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for two years as well as fine of Rs.500/- under Section 409 of the IPC while simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500/- under Section 420 of the I.P.C. In default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a month. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 4. Petitioner had thereafter filed Cr.Appeal No.2 of 1998 which was disposed of on 17.01.2002 in absence of learned counsel and accordingly, the aforesaid order was set aside under Cr.Revision No.323 of 2002 vide order dated 24.04.2002 and the matter was remitted back and subsequently thereupon the same was decided on 7th June, 2002 by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Buxar maintaining the conviction but modified the sentence reducing rigorous imprisonment for one year along with fine so slapped by trial court under both counts. In default of payment of fine to serve out the sentence of one month. 5. Petitioner being extra departmental mail carrier was entrusted with Rs.3200/- in a bag to carry it from Purana Bhojpur Post Office to Chhatanwar Post Office out of which Rs.2900/- was misappropriated by the petitioner while having the bag under his custody that means to say the public amount was misappropriated by the petitioner. From the Lower Court record, it is also apparent that aforesaid misappropriated amount appertaining to Rs.2900/- had already been deposited by the petitioner. It is also evident from the judgment of the learned Trial Court that in the year 1998 petitioners age was estimated as 55 years that means to say his age for the present can be estimated as 70 years. 6. It is also evident from the judgment of the learned Trial Court that in the year 1998 petitioners age was estimated as 55 years that means to say his age for the present can be estimated as 70 years. 6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of M.P. v. Pappu reported in (2008) 16 SCC 758 has taken into account the earlier decision guiding the issue of sentence and dealt it in following way:- 9. This Court in State of M.P. v. Pappu (2008) 16 SCC 758 considered the similar question of validity and justifiability of reduction of sentence, awarded by the trial court to the accused convicted under Section 376(1) read with Section 511 of the Penal Code, 1860 (in short “IPC”) and Sections 324 and 452 IPC, by the High Court. This Court relying upon its earlier observations in State of M.P. v. Ghanshyam Singh (2003) 8 SCC 13 and State of M.P. v. Babbu Barkare (2005)5 SCC 413 observed that undue sympathy towards the accused by imposition of inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system by undermining the confidence of society in the efficacy of law and society could not long endure under such serious threats. The courts therefore are duty-bound to award proper sentence having regard to the nature and manner of execution or commission of the offence. This Court, highlighted the dangers of imposition of sentence without due regard to its effects on the social order and opined as follows: (Pappu case (2008) 16 SCC 758 , SCC p. 761, para 9) “9. … 17. … The social impact of the crime e.g. where it relates to offences against women, dacoity, kidnapping, misappropriation of public money, treason and other offences involving moral turpitude or moral delinquency which have great impact on social order and public interest cannot be lost sight of and per se require exemplary treatment. Any liberal attitude by imposing meagre sentences or taking too sympathetic a view merely on account of lapse of time in respect of such offences will be result wise counterproductive in the long run and against societal interest which needs to be cared for and strengthened by a string of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system. * * * 19. Any liberal attitude by imposing meagre sentences or taking too sympathetic a view merely on account of lapse of time in respect of such offences will be result wise counterproductive in the long run and against societal interest which needs to be cared for and strengthened by a string of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system. * * * 19. … The court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which the criminal and victim belong. The punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it should “respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminal”. If for the extremely heinous crime of murder perpetrated in a very brutal manner without any provocation, most deterrent punishment is not given, the case of deterrent punishment will lose its relevance. (Ghanshyam Singh case, (2003) 8 SCC 13 SCC pp. 20-21, paras 17 & 19)”. 7. Present case gives a different picture. Although petitioner faced trial for misappropriation of public money but at an earliest opportunity he had deposited the amount. 8. Because of the fact that petitioner had already deposited the misappropriated amount and further having fallen fag end of life, therefore, the sentence so inflicted by the lower courts need relook. On account thereof, the sentence is modified to already undergone. Instant petition is disposed of in terms thereof. Petitioner is on bail, hence is discharged from its liability. Petition disposed of.