1. This Revision Application is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.9.2010 passed in Criminal Case No.173 of 2004 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lakhtar, whereby the learned Magistrate had convicted and sentenced the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code, to undergo S.I. for six months and fine of Rs.1,000/, in default, to further undergo for two months S.I. Against the said judgment and order, the applicant preferred Appeal being Criminal Appeal No.43 of 2010 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar and learned Sessions Judge has confirmed the judgment and order dated 18.9.2010 passed in Criminal Case No.173 of 2004 by the learned Magistrate, by passing the judgment and order dated 17.3.2011.
2. The short facts of the prosecution are such that on 6.3.2004, at about 7:00 p.m., the complainant working as helper in G.E.B., Rural Department, was returning back after completing repairing work from the house of one Mr. Prabhubhai, the applicant and his friend met the complainant and started speaking in abusive manner stating that why complainant attached insulated tape on the pole of cable wire and complainant was slapped and witness accompanying complainant was beaten up. The complainant was given threat by the applicant. Therefore, complaint was lodged before Lakhtar Police Station and chargesheet came to be filed. During the trial, the prosecution examined oral evidence of P.W.1 Hasmukhbhai Shankerlal, Panch witness at Exhibit 7, P.W.2 – Ramjibhai Mohanbhai Patel, complainant at Exhibit 17, P.W.3 – Ranjitbhai Revabhai Dabhi, witness at Exhibit 20, P.W.4 – Babubhai Virjibhai, witness at Exhibit 21, P.W. 5 Ukabhai Shankerbhai, Panch witness at Exhibit 22 and P.W.6 – Babakhan Verajibhai Malek Investigating Officer at Exhibit 25 and documentary evidence like complaint at Exhibit 8 and Panchnama at Exhibit 18. After considering the documentary and oral evidence, the case was tried and the applicant was convicted by the learned Magistrate as stated above.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Gateshniya for the applicant submitted that he is not arguing this matter on merit and he is pressing this matter on the issue of sentence only. In support of his statement, he has filed the affidavit affirmed by the applicant, which is ordered to be taken on record. He submitted that the applicant is very poor person and he is not involved in a very serious offence. Even the sentence is of only six months. Therefore, he lastly prayed to reduce at least the sentence.
4. Learned APP Mr. Jani submitted that the judgment and order passed by the Courts below are just and proper and they are not required to be disturbed in any way. He submitted that the judgment and order passed by the Courts below are required to be confirmed by dismissing the present Revision application.
5. Perused the application and papers produced before me and considered the submissions advanced by the learned advocates for the parties. The complainant is a public servant and while he was performing his duties as a helper, the applicant caused hurt to him to deter him from performing his public duty. From the record, it is also established the the contents of complaint and contents depositions of witnesses are corroborated and two panchas turned hostile. I have perused the judgment and order passed by the Courts below and the offences as alleged against the applicant are proved beyond reasonable doubt. I am in total agreement with the findings of the Courts below. So far as the submission of the learned advocate for the applicant regarding sentence undergone may be considered is concerned, I do not agree with the said submission of the learned advocate. He has further prayed to reduce the sentence at least to some extent. In the facts and circumstances of the case and sentence as well as considering the submission of the learned advocate, sentence of six months is reduced to the extent of four months.
6. In view of the above, the Revision Application is partly allowed. The judgment and order passed by the learned Second Joint Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Lakhtar in Criminal Case No.173 of 2004 dated 18.9.2010 and judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar passed in Criminal Appeal No.43 of 2010 dated 17.3.2011 are hereby confirmed, but so far as sentence is concerned, the sentence is modified to the extent of four months instead of six months. The applicant is on bail and, therefore, his bail bond is cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the Jail Authority within four weeks from the date of this order, failing which, the concerned Court shall issue nonbailable warrant to effect the arrest of the applicant. Rest of the judgment of the learned Sessions Court in so far as amount of fine, shall remain unaltered. R & P to be sent back to the trial Court, forthwith.
ynvyas (Z.K.SAIYED,J.)