Heard Sri Prem Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Vipul Gupta, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
Challenge in this revision is the judgment and order dated 26.2.2002 in Criminal Appeal No.62 of 2001 and judgement and order dated 19.12.2001 in Criminal Case No. 9 of 2001.
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-V, Unnao convicted the accused-revisionist in Case Crime No. 63 of 1989, Criminal Case No. 9 of 2001, under Section 394 I.P.C., P.S. Bighapur, District Unnao and sentenced him to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/- under Section 394 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, two months additional imprisonment.
Appeal there-against has been dismissed by Sessions Judge, Unnao and confirmed the conviction.
Being aggrieved with the order of Courts below, revisionist filed the present criminal revision.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that revisionist is in custody more than one year and at present he is in jail. He further submitted that no offence is made out against the revisionist. He has been falsely implicated in the present case for harassment and humiliation.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has not pressed the revision on merit but prayed that accused-revisionist is a very poor person. He is not in a position to get bail and due to paucity of money he is in jail, therefore, sentence awarded by the Court below may be reduced to the period already undergone and keeping the accused-revisionist in jail for a long time would not serve the useful purpose.
Learned A.G.A. opposed by stating that under the circumstances, in which, occurrence took place, sentence awarded by the courts below appears fit but has no objection on the second part of prayer.
Upon perusal of the record, I find that after a proper scrutiny of the evidence available on record, Trial Court as well as Appellate Court found accused guilty and I do not find any good ground to interfere the conviction, therefore, conviction of revisionist under Section 394 I.P.C. is confirmed.
It appears that proceeding before the court below was commenced in 2001. There is nothing on record to show that accused-revisionist has misused the liberty of bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, age of the accused-revisionist and circumstances in which offence has been committed, detention of accused-revisionist in jail and his economic condition, I do not think it proper to send the accused-revisionist in jail again. After lapse of long time, I am of the view that if the sentences of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone with fine, it would meet the ends of justice.
It is ordered that accused-revisionist is sentenced to the period already undergone. He shall shall pay Rs. 10,000/- as fine to be deposited in the Trial Court, failing which, accused-revisionist shall undergo for six months simple imprisonment and on deposition of fine, Trial Court shall take an appropriate action to release the accused-revisionist in accordance with law.
The revision is disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 31.7.2019 Manoj