Court No. - 40
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 280 of 1992 Revisionist :- Trilok Chandra Opposite Party :- State Counsel for Revisionist :- A.B.L. Gaur Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Sri A.B.L. Gaur, learned Senior Counsel for the revisionist assisted by Sri Saurabh Gaur, Advocate and Sri Janardan Prakas, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 10.01.1992 passed by VIIth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 1991 (Trilok Chandra Vs. State) and order dated 26.02.1991 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khurja, Bulandshahr in Case No. 1534 of 1990 convicting the revisionist under Section 279 and 337 I.P.C. and sentencing him under Section 279 I.P.C. to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine he has to undergo imprisonment for one month. Further under Section 337 I.P.C. to undergo imprisonment for one month and payment of fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that maximum punishment awarded to the revisionist for a period of one month, which he had already served. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the revisionist that against the order dated 10.01.1992 passed by lower appellate court, the present revision was preferred on 19.02.1992, in which revisionist was granted bail on 20.9.1992.
Learned A.G.A. did not dispute that fact that the revisionist has already been served the entire substantive sentence awarded to him.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that since the substantive sentence given to revisionist has already been served by him, therefore, in the interest of justice it would be appropriate to set aside the fine imposed upon the revisionist. Learned counsel for the revisionist has not pressed the present revision on merit.
I have perused the material evidence on record. After having heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I find that there is no manifest error of law or illegality in the aforesaid judgment and order dated 26.02.1991 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khurja, Bulandshahr and order dated 10.1.1992 passed by VIIth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar.
However, considering the nature of offence as well as the facts that revisionist has already served the entire substantive sentence of one month, it would be in the interest of justice to accept the request of the revisionist to modify the aforesaid judgment and order dated 26.2.1991 and 10.1.1992 by setting aside the amount of fine imposed on the revisionist. In view of above, part of the order dated 26.2.1991 and 10.1.1992 to the extent of imposing time of Rs. 500 for the offence under Section 279 I.P.C. and Rs. 500 for the offence under Section 337 I.P.C. on the revisionist are set aside.
The revision is partly allowed.
Order Date :- 21.12.2018/ Abhishek