Court No. - 12
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5249 of 2006 Revisionist :- Naresh And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Awadhesh Kr. Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 25.10.2018, all the revisionists have been arrested and produced before this Court who have been identified by Sri Pawan Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate holding brief of Sri Awadhesh Kr. Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionists.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A.
The present revision has been filed by the revisionists for setting aside the judgment and order dated 5.9.2006 passed by Upper Session Judge/E.C. Act, Bareilly in Criminal Appeal No. 59 of 2003, thereby dismissing the appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 21.06.2003 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly in case No. 275 of 2002 by which convicting and sentencing the revisionists, under Section 323/34 IPC to undergo six months simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- and further convicting and sentencing the revisionists under Sections 324/34 IPC to undergo one year imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/-.
Case of the revisionists is that earlier vide order dated 21.06.2003 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Bareilly in case No. 275 of 2002, they were convicted under Section 323/34 IPC and punishment of six months simple imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 1000/- was awarded. It is further submitted that they were also convicted under Section 324/34 IPC and punishment of one year simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/-. It is also stated in the judgment that in case of failure of deposit of fine, revisionists shall remain in jail for further one month.
Against that order, revisionists have preferred Appeal No. 59 of 2003 and the Appellate Court had dismissed the appeal but reduced the sentence in Section 323/34 from one year to one month and penalty from Rs. 1000/- to 100/- and in Section 324/34 from one year to three months and fine from Rs. 1000/- to 500/- and in case of failure of depositing fine, period of imprisonment was also reduced from one month to 15 days.
Learned counsel for the revisionists has filed bail application and submitted that the revisionists have been convicted for six months imprisonment but later on the sentence was reduced by Appellate Court for three months. The revisionists have already undergone the sentence awarded to them. In support thereof, they have also produced a certificate dated 19.11.2018 which is taken on record issued by Superintendent, District Jail, Bareilly. He further submitted that under such circumstances, the revisionists may be released on bail.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the learned courts below have passed the orders without carefully examining the material evidence on record. There are contradictions with regard to the place of occurrence. It is also his case that the version of witnesses does not support the FIR version. The court below did not consider the statement of revisionists.
Lastly, it has been submitted that the revisionists have already undergone certain period in jail and requested that their sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.
The learned counsel for the revisionists placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Nand Lal vs. State of Uttarakhand decided on 5.4.2010 2010 Law Suit (SC) 180 as well as of this Court in the case of Devendra in Jail Vs. State in Criminal Revision in 2540 of 2011 decided on 31 October, 2011, Veerwati Vs. State of U.P. in Criminal Revision No.2334 of 2010 decided on May 29th May, 2012 and Narendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. in Criminal Revision No.1279 of 2005 decided on 4th August, 2014, in which, Apex Court as well as of this Court without disturbing conviction, released the accused on the basis of sentence undergone.
Learned AGA has opposed the revision, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the revision is partly allowed maintaining the conviction of revisionists without interfering into the period of sentence as the same has already been undergone by the revisionists. The penalty imposed upon the revisionists by the Court below is waved off and the revisionists are released from the Court forthwith with a direction to complete the formalities required at District Jail, Bareilly.
Copy of the order be given to learned counsel for the parties today on payment of usual charges.
Order Date :- 26.11.2018/Sartaj