Criminal Revision filed to set aside prior conviction and reduce sentence based on time spent in jail. The court relied on precedents to allow release of revisionists already incarcerated, remanding one to remain at liberty.
Revisionists Nos. 1 and 2 in jail released forthwith; Revisionist No. 3 not to be arrested.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 12
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1711 of 1988
Revisionist :- Amarjeet & Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Bhagwati Rai,Rakesh Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A.
Learned counsel for the revisionists stated that revisionist Nos. 1 and 2 are in jail and Non-bailable warrant has been issued against revisionist No. 3 who is a 85 years old person.
The present revision has been filed by the revisionist for setting aside the judgment and order dated 29.11.1988 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 1988 and judgment and order dated 12.1.1988 passed by lower criminal court, second, Allahabad in Criminal case No. 467 of 1987 and revisionists may be acquitted for the offence under section 435 IPC in which they have been convicted for one year rigorous imprisonment.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionists that the learned court below has not examined the witness properly and without proper appraisal of the witnesses, convicted the revisionists. He further submitted that the FIR has been lodged much later from the date of incident and the allegations against the local police for not entertaining the FIR at the police station is absolutely false and baseless. He further submits that the revisionists have been falsely implicated in the present case and they are not a previous convict. Lastly, it has been submitted that the revisionist Nos. 1 and 2 are in jail and 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 revisionist 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, sentence of imprisonment already undergone by the revisionists will serve ends of justice. The revision is partly allowed. The revisionist Nos. 1 and 2 who are in jail, shall be released from the jail forthwith. The revisionist No. 3, who is not in jail, shall not be arrested. Order Date :- 28.11.2018 Sartaj
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the revisionists should be granted release based on the sentence already undergone since conviction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nand Lal vs. State of UttarakhandReferred¶9
Nand Lal vs. State of Uttarakhand decided on 5.4.2010 2010 Law Suit (SC) 180
Devendra in Jail Vs. StateReferred¶10
Devendra in Jail Vs. State in Criminal Revision in 2540 of 2011
Veerwati Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶10
Veerwati Vs. State of U.P. in Criminal Revision No.2334 of 2010
Narendra Singh Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶10
Narendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. in Criminal Revision No.1279 of 2005
State Of U.P.
Neeraj Tiwari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
