Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 249 (CHH)

Roopan Korwa v. State of Chhattisgarh

2014-07-07

SANJAY K.AGRAWAL

body2014
ORDER Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. Invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called as 'Cr.P.C.'), the applicant has filed instant criminal revision challenging the impugned judgment dated 14/07/2005 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities), Ambikapur, Surguja in Criminal Appeal No. 48/2004, by which, the conviction of the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called as 'IPC') was maintained by the Appellate Court, but the, sentence has been reduced to the period undergone by the applicant and imposed fine sentence of Rs. 5,000/-. The facts, briefly stated are as under: 1.1 The prosecution/State filed a charge-sheet for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 & 338, IPC against the applicant alleging that on 25/09/1996, at about, 3.00 p.m., due to rash and negligent driving of applicant. Tractor No. MP-27/B/0520 attached with Trolley turned turtle and the persons sitting in the Trolley got various injuries. It was alleged that due to aforesaid act of the applicant, caused hurt endangered the life of persons sitting in the Trolley. 1.2 After investigation charge sheet was filed before the competent jurisdictional Criminal Court against the applicant. Applicant abjured the guilt and decided to enter into defence stating that he has been falsely implicated in the offence in question. 1.3 During the course of trial, prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 43 documents in support of his case, whereas, defence neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document. 1.4 Upon appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur, Surguja, by its judgment dated 30/01/2004 in Criminal Case No. 596/1996, convicted the applicant under Section 338, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. 1.5 In an appeal preferred by the applicant, learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Ambikapur, Surguja, by its judgment dated 14/07/2005 in Criminal Appeal No. 48/2004, maintained the judgment of conviction but partly interfered with the sentence, reducing the sentence for the period undergone and imposed the fine sentence of Rs. 5,000/-. 1.6 Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment of the Appellate Court, applicant has filed instant criminal revision. 2. Mr. A.K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that imposition of sentence of fine of Rs. 5,000/-, exceeding Rs. 5,000/-. 1.6 Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment of the Appellate Court, applicant has filed instant criminal revision. 2. Mr. A.K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that imposition of sentence of fine of Rs. 5,000/-, exceeding Rs. 1,000/-, is, as prescribed in Section 338, IPC, unjustified and in teeth of Section 338, IPC. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Arvind Shukla, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State/non-applicant, opposing the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant, would submit that the order imposing fine of Rs. 5,000/- is absolutely justified in the facts of the case. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and have also perused the record of the Court below with utmost circumspection. 5. The applicant has been convicted for commission of offence under Section 338, IPC. At this stage, it would be necessary to notice Section 338, IPC, which provides as under: "Section 338-Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others. Whoever causes grievous hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be, punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both." 6. From a careful and close perusal of the aforesaid provision, it appears that the legislature has fixed the maximum outer limit of sentence of fine, which the criminal Court, while sentencing an accused person under Section 338, IPC, can impose. The word "may extend to Rs. 1,000/-" is extremely important and in no case sentence of fine can exceed Rs. 1,000/-. 7. In a case before the Supreme Court in Ms. Rajasthan Pharmaceutical Laboratory, Bangalore and two others v. State of Karnataka, (1981) 1 SCC 645 : ( AIR 1981 SC 809 ), the offence under Section 18-A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act (in short 'Drugs Act') was punishable under Section 28 of the Drugs Act. Section 28 of the Drugs Act prescribes imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to Rs. 500/- or with both. Their, Lordships of the Supreme Court has held that no fine in excess of Rs. 500/- could be imposed for an offence under Section 18-A of the Drugs Act. Section 28 of the Drugs Act prescribes imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to Rs. 500/- or with both. Their, Lordships of the Supreme Court has held that no fine in excess of Rs. 500/- could be imposed for an offence under Section 18-A of the Drugs Act. 8. The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court applies squarely to the facts of the present case. In the instant case, for the offence punishable under Section 338, IPC, sentence of fine can be imposed to the extent of Rs. 1,000/- only and, therefore, imposition of sentence of fine to the extent of Rs. 5,000/-, in contravention of Section 338, IPC, is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, the impugned judgment, so far as it relates to awarding of sentence of fine of Rs. 5,000/-, is set aside and in place thereof, now, the applicant shall pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- only. Consequently, the criminal revision is allowed in part as indicated above. Appeal allowed.