Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 571 (UTT)

AKEEL v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2015-12-14

ALOK SINGH

body2015
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (Oral) 1. L.C.R. has been received. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the parties fairly submits that since L.C.R. has been received, therefore, present revision may be disposed of at this stage. 3. Present revision is preferred assailing the judgment and order dated 28.06.2013 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ramnagar, District Nainital, whereby, appellant was held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 379 I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default in making the payment of fine, to undergo additional simple imprisonment of 15 dyas as well as judgment and order dated 21.02.2015 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital, whereby, appeal filed by the accused/revisionist, was dismissed upholding the judgment and order of the learned Trial Magistrate. 4. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that a report was lodged by Nandan Singh with P.S. Kotwali Ramnagar stating therein, that on 23.04.2008, he came to Ramnagar market to purchase certain items for the marriage of his sister; when he was loading the goods purchased by him, in a bus at about 11:30 A.M., accused has stolen his purse from his pocket, wherein, Rs. 2,610/- were kept; accused was apprehended on the spot with the help of driver Rajendra Singh as well as conductor of the bus; on being interrogated by the police, accused/revisionist has disclosed to the police that he has handed over the stolen purse to his companion/co-accused Ayub @ Mahboob, who after taking the purse ran away from the spot; on pointing out of the Akeel/accused/revisionist, purse in question was recovered from the possession of Smt. Ahmadi, real sister of Ayub alongwith Rs. 2,610/-. 5. P.W.1 Nandan Singh, while appearing in the witness box has stated that no recovery of purse was made in his presence from the possession of co-accused Ahmadi. 6. Undisputedly, accused was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 456 and 411 I.P.C. Moreover, Smt. Ahmadi was also acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 411 I.P.C. The stolen purse was not recovered from the possession of the revisionist. 7. Mr. 6. Undisputedly, accused was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 456 and 411 I.P.C. Moreover, Smt. Ahmadi was also acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 411 I.P.C. The stolen purse was not recovered from the possession of the revisionist. 7. Mr. Sarvesh Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist, submits that he does not want to argue this revision on merit, however, since appellant has no other criminal case to his credit and he is languishing in jail from 09.04.2015 and has undergone more than 8 months of the imprisonment, therefore, sentence awarded to him should be reduced for the period already undergone. 8. Considering the fact that complainant has received his purse alongwith Rs. 2,610/- and there is no other criminal case to the credit of the revisionist, I find force in the suggestion of Mr. Sarvesh Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist, therefore, revision is allowed to the extent that sentence awarded to the revisionist is reduced for the period already undergone by the revisionist. 9. CRMA No. 828 of 2015 also stands disposed of accordingly. 9. Let a copy of this order alongwith the L.C.R. be sent back immediately to the Trial Court for information and compliance.