Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 577 (UTT)

Sadik Alias Tinu v. State Of Uttarakhand

2020-12-22

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2020
JUDGMENT Ravindra Maithani, J. - The instant appeal is preferred against order dated 25th August, 2020, passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 10 of 2020, State vs. Sadik alias Tinu, by the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar ('The case'). By this order, the appellant has been convicted under Section 136 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and sentenced to 9 months 12 days imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/. The order also stipulates that in default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month. 2. The case is based on a charge-sheet, which relates to theft of electric line, material etc. According to the case, the appellant removed electric line and material from a transformer. The appellant pleaded guilty. Based on his plead guilty, he has been sentenced as aforesaid apart from civil liability, which was fixed at Rs. 62,000/- .The appeal is received from jail. 3. Learned Amicus Curiae would submit that the appellant did not get effective legal assistance at trial. He has undergone the substantive sentence, but he is too poor to pay even Rs. 2000/- as fine. Based on one recovery, he was implicated in 19 cases, in which, he pleaded guilty and now if the fine is not reduced, the appellant will have to remain in jail for a longer period only because of his inability to pay a fine. 4. Learned State counsel would submit that based on plead guilty, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced. 5. It is true that the appellant has been convicted on the basis of his plead guilty. The appeal in such circumstances can be maintained only to the extent or legality of the sentence as provided under Section 375 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. In the instant case, what is being argued is the extent of the sentence. It is being argued that the appellant is so poor that he is not able to pay the fine amount and in that eventuality, he will have to remain in jail for a longer period. 6. The facts are admitted that on 21.07.2019, according to the prosecution, certain electric materials, in fact, wire was recovered from the appellant and based on it, in 19 cases, charge-sheets have been submitted. Appellant pleaded guilty and the substantive sentence is imprisonment for 9 months and 12 days. 6. The facts are admitted that on 21.07.2019, according to the prosecution, certain electric materials, in fact, wire was recovered from the appellant and based on it, in 19 cases, charge-sheets have been submitted. Appellant pleaded guilty and the substantive sentence is imprisonment for 9 months and 12 days. The appellant is not in a position to secure his freedom due to his economic condition. 7. Having considered this and all the attending circumstances, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be served if the fine of sentence is reduced from Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 500/-. 8. The fine imposed upon the appellant is reduced from Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 500/-. 9. The impugned order dated 25th August, 2020 is modified to the extent, as above. 10. The appeal is partly allowed accordingly. 11. Let a copy of this judgment be forwarded to the learned Court below for compliance.