Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 414 (UTT)

Nanha v. State Of Uttarakhand

2020-10-19

N.S.DHANIK

body2020
JUDGMENT N. S. Dhanik, J. - This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 15.01.2020 passed by learned 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 134 of 2018, whereby he has confirmed the judgment and order dated 28.05.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (J.D.), Jaspur, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No. 337 of 2017, "State vs. Nanha", whereby the revisionist was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC and sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall serve further two months 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. He fairly concedes that revisionist has served about two months twenty nine days in the jail. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that revisionist is a young boy aged about 27 years; he is a poor person and the incident relates to the year 2012. He further submits there is no minimum sentence provided for the aforementioned offence. He submits that revisionist has already served about two months twenty nine 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 two months twenty nine 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 young boy and the incident relates to the year 2012, 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 is reduced to the period already undergone by the revisionist. 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. 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- The enhanced amount of fine shall be deposited before the trial Court within two months 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 two months 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. 8. Let a certified copy of this order be issued to the learned counsel for the parties, within 48 hours on payment of usual charges.