Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 417 (UTT)

Santosh Bainjwal v. State Of Uttarakhand

2020-10-21

N.S.DHANIK

body2020
JUDGMENT N.S. Dhanik, J. - This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 02.07.2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag in Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2010, whereby he has confirmed the judgment and order dated 13.09.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st, Rudraprayag in Criminal Case No. 04 of 2010, whereby the revisionist was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 409 IPC and sentenced to undergo three years simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall serve further six months simple imprisonment. Revisionist was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 467 IPC and sentenced to undergo three years simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/. In default of payment of fine, he shall serve further six months simple imprisonment. Revisionist further also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 471 IPC and sentenced to undergo two years simple imprisonment and to pay of fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall serve further six 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 one year one month eighteen days in the jail. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that revisionist is a poor person and the matter relates to the year 2010. He further submits there is no minimum sentence provided for the aforementioned offences. He submits that revisionist has already served about one year one month eighteen 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 one year one month eighteen 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. 5. Since the revisionist has served one year one month eighteen 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 to the year 2010, 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. The sentence of fine is enhanced under Section 409 IPC from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 20,000/-; under Section 467 IPC from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- and under Section 471 IPC from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 20,000/-. The enhanced amount of fine shall be deposited before the trial Court within two weeks 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 weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order, he shall serve the additional nine months simple imprisonment in each aforementioned Section. 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.