Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 399 (UTT)

Shakil Ahmad v. State Of Uttarakhand

2020-10-12

N.S.DHANIK

body2020
JUDGMENT N. S. Dhanik, J. - This criminal revision is preferred by the revisionists against the judgment and order dated 12.02.2020 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 2019, " Atul Sharma and others v. State of Uttarakhand", whereby the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and order of the conviction dated 24.01.2019 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No. 6317 of 2017. By the said order dated 24.01.2019, the revisionists have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC and were sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 1000/- each. 2. Learned counsel for the revisionists would submit that the revisionists were on bail during trial as well as during the appeal and have never misused the bail granted to them. 3. After arguing at some length, learned counsel for the revisionists limits his prayer only on the point of quantum of sentence and does not press this revision on merits. He is only submitting on the order of sentence. Since the revisionists' counsel does not challenge the conviction, this Court need not go into the merits of the case and, accordingly, the conviction in the aforementioned offences is maintained. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionists also submitted that revisionist no.1 (Shakil Ahmad) has undergone four months and fifteen days in jail, revisionist no. 2 (Jitendra Kumar) has undergone four months in jail and revisionist no. 3 (Sarjeet Singh) has undergone three months & twenty seven days in jail and there is no minimum sentence for the aforementioned offence. 5. Learned State Counsel fairly concedes that the revisionist no.1 (Shakil Ahmad) has undergone four months and fifteen days in jail, revisionist no. 2 (Jitendra Kumar) has undergone four months in jail and revisionist no. 3 (Sarjeet Singh) has undergone three months & twenty seven days in jail. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that the revisionists are the poor people and the only bread earners of their family. He submits that revisionist no.1 (Shakil Ahmad) has undergone four months and fifteen days in jail, revisionist no. 2 (Jitendra Kumar) has undergone four months in jail and revisionist no. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that the revisionists are the poor people and the only bread earners of their family. He submits that revisionist no.1 (Shakil Ahmad) has undergone four months and fifteen days in jail, revisionist no. 2 (Jitendra Kumar) has undergone four months in jail and revisionist no. 3 (Sarjeet Singh) has undergone three months & twenty seven days in jail and prays that the substantive sentence, awarded to the revisionists, may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 7. Since the revisionist no.1 (Shakil Ahmad) has undergone four months and fifteen days in jail, revisionist no. 2 (Jitendra Kumar) has undergone four months in jail and revisionist no. 3 (Sarjeet Singh) has undergone three months & twenty seven days in jail and also considering that there is no minimum sentence for the aforementioned offence, I am of the considered view that this much of sentence, as served out by the revisionists, is sufficient to serve the purpose. 8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the fact that the revisionists are the poor people, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be sub-served. Consequently, the revision is dismissed on merit. However, it is partly allowed on the quantum of sentence and the sentence under Section 411 of IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by the revisionists. The sentence of fine is enhanced from Rs.1,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-each. The total enhanced amount of fine shall be deposited before the trial Court within fifteen days. Amount, if any, deposited earlier shall be adjusted. If the revisionists fail to deposit the enhanced amount of fine within fifteen days from today, they shall serve the additional three months imprisonment. The impugned judgment and order stands modified to the extent indicated above. 9. Let a copy of this judgment and order, along with the LCR be sent back to the Court concerned.