Court No. - 17
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 379 of 1994 Revisionist :- Janki Prasad Opposite Party :- State Counsel for Revisionist :- Amar Saran,Raj Kumar Vaishya,Raj.Kumar.Vaishya Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the judgement and order dated 4.2.1994, passed by II-Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly, dismissing the criminal appeal no.83 of 1983 and connected Criminal Appeal No.89/93 and affirming the judgement and order dated 27.5.93 in S.T. No.148/92 convicting and sentencing the revisionists to undergo 3 years R.I. u/s 307/34 IPC.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. for the opposite party-State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that matter is very old and he prays only with regard to the sentence. He further submitted that revisionist no.1 Janki Prasad had died in the year 1997 and the revisionist no.2 Omkar is alive and he is also suffering from serious ailment, so he requested to decide the revision, expeditiously. The revisionist has filed this revision against the impugned order passed by the court below in the year 1994 which has been heard today after laps of more than 26 years, hence in these circumstances, this Court may take lenient view and graciously modify the sentence awarded to them for the period undergone alongwith fine.
Considering the law laid down by Apex Court in Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad Versus State of Maharashtra (arising out of S.L.P. (CRl.) No. 6287 of 2011), this Hon'ble court may take a view of leniency and graciously modified the sentence awarded to revisionists to the period already undergone along with fine. In case this Hon'ble Court finds it desirable to enhance the fine, the revisionists will not treat and fine along with additional fine or compensation under Section 307/34 IPC of Rs.5,000/- eachhe same as enhancement of sentence.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, considering the facts and circumstances of the case alongwith case law cited above, I am of the view that sentence part of the impugned order dated 04.02.1994 is desired to be modified, suitably. However, there is 01 living revisionist and for the reasons stated above, sentence part of the impugned order is modified to the extent that the revisionist is sentenced for the period of six months imprisonment and period undergone shall be set off from this sentence. It is further directed that fine of Rs.5000/- deposited by the revisionist be released in favour of the revisionist (in case of his death it will be paid in favour of his legal representatives/heirs).
A copy of this order be communicated to the trial concerned for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 25.2.2019 m.a.