Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 385 (UTT)

Basant Singh Rana v. State Of Uttarakhand

2020-10-08

N.S.DHANIK

body2020
JUDGMENT N.S. Dhanik, J. - This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 27.08.2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 112 of 2010, whereby he has confirmed the judgment and order dated 05.08.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Khatima in Criminal Case No. 772 of 2009, whereby the revisionist was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall serve further fifteen days simple imprisonment. 2. Learned counsel for the revisionist does not press this revision on merits. He submits his arguments only on the quantum of sentence. Since the revisionist's counsel does not challenge the conviction, this Court need not go into the merits of the case and, accordingly, the conviction in the aforementioned offence is maintained. 3. Learned State Counsel does not seriously object to the prayer made on behalf of the revisionist. She fairly concedes that revisionist has served about 21 days in the jail. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that this is a complaint case; revisionist is aged about 35 years; he is a poor person and the matter relates to the year 2009. He also submits that despite sufficient service, respondent no. 1 had not turned up in the matter. He further submits there is no minimum sentence provided for the aforementioned offence. He submits that revisionist has already served about 21 days in the jail and prays that the substantive sentence, awarded to the revisionist, may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 5. Since the revisionist has served 21 days imprisonment and also considering the nature of the case, I am of the considered view that this much of sentence, as served out by the revisionist, is sufficient to serve the purpose. 6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist and the fact that the revisionist is a poor person and the matter relates back to the year 2009, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be sub-served, if the jail sentence of the revisionist is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Consequently, the revision is dismissed on merit. Consequently, the revision is dismissed on merit. However, it is partly allowed on the quantum of sentence and the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by the revisionist. The sentence of fine is enhanced from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 5,000/- The enhanced amount of fine shall be deposited before the trial Court within 45 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Amount, if any, deposited earlier shall be adjusted. If the revisionist fails to deposit the enhanced amount of fine within 45 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order, he shall serve the additional three months simple imprisonment. The impugned judgment and order stands modified to the extent indicated above. 7. Let a copy of this judgment and order along with the LCR be sent back to the Court concerned for doing the needful at the earliest.