Partly allowed

Ram Sanehi @ Terhwa v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Sept 2018CRLR/22/1990

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the Court upheld the conviction under Section 392 IPC but modified the sentence. Considering the revisionist's age, family background, and the delay, the Court reduced the sentence to the period of imprisonment already undergone while directing him to pay a fine.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; sentence reduced to imprisonment already undergone with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- payable within two months.

Ram Sanehi @ Terhwa Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 41

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 22 of 1990

¶4

Revisionist :- Ram Sanehi @ Terhwa Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- R.B. Sahai Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶6

Learned counsel for the revisionist has filed recall application No.2 of 2018 dated. 25.8.2018 alongwith delay condonation application No.1 of 2018 dated 25.8.2018 for recall of order dated 17.7.2018 whereby Nonbailable warrant has been issued. According to report of CJM dated 16.8.2018, compliance of order dated 17.7.2018 has been done and the revisionist is now in jail. Thus, both the applications are hereby rejected.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for revisionist and learned AGA. Perused the record.

¶8

This criminal revision has been preferred against judgment and order dated 21.12.1988 passed by CJM, Fatehpur in Case No.670/87, Police Station Bindki, Fatehpur convicting revisionist under section 392 IPC and sentencing him to two years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/and in default to deposit fine, six months' simple imprisonment; and judgment and order dated 9.11.1989 passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur in Criminal Appeal No.1 of 1989 dismissing the appeal and confirming judgment and order dated 21.12.1988.

¶9

In brief, facts of the case are that on 25.8.1986, revisionist Ram Sanehi alongwith his three other companions stopped Rakesh Kumar, Suraj Bali and Namo Bajpayee and showed them countrymade pistols; accused snatched away wrist watches of Rakesh Kumar and Surajbali. They also looted Rs.425/- from Rakesh Kumar.

¶10

Case was registered against Ram Sanehi and one Medwa. After investigation, police submitted charge sheet against Ram Sanehi only. Charge was framed under Sections 392 IPC and prosecution examined P.W.-1 Rakesh, P.W.-2 Namo Bajpayee and P.W.-3 S.I. Natrapal Singh. Statement of Ram Sanehi was recorded under section 313 r.P.C.

¶11

¶12

After hearing parties, Trial Court convicted Ram Sanehi under Section 392 IPC and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and in default to deposit fine, six months' simple imprisonment. In appeal, conviction and sentence has been confirmed. Hence this revision.

¶13

Learned counsel for the revisionist argued only on the point of sentence and submitted that the incident is of year 1986 and 32 years have elapsed, revisionist is old aged person and no fruitful purpose would be served in sending him to jail. It is further submitted that revisionist is ready to deposit fine before trial Court/appellate Court, hence lenient view may be taken against revisionist and he may be sentenced to imprisonment already undergone with fine.

¶14

Learned AGA opposed the prayer but on this point he did not raise any argument that the case is very old and the revisionist is also about 62 years old, hence a lenient view may be taken.

¶15

In the case of Ved Ram and others vs. State of U.P., 2010(68) ACC 182 wherein appellants have already remained in jail for almost eight months and on being satisfied with the period of incarceration, the Court imposed additional fine of Rs.1000/- and altered conviction from under Section 307 IPC to under section 324/149 IPC.

¶16

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Kaisarbaig and others, (2018) 4 SCC 403 sentenced the appellants to the period of imprisonment already undergone with fine of Rs.50,000/- in addition to what has already been paid to the victim under Section 148/324/149 IPC.

¶17

The Division Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raman Kalia and another vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1979 SC 1261 has held that "we would, therefore, while upholding the conviction of Raman Kalia under Section 323 I.P.C. reduce the sentence to the period already served, which we understand is about a month and a half."

¶18

Considering the age, social & economic status of revisionist and family background, no fruitful purpose would be served in sending revisionist to jail at this stage and purpose would be served if he is convicted

¶19

¶20

and sentenced to imprisonment already undergone with fine.

¶21

The revision is partly allowed. Conviction of revisionist Ram Sanehi @ Terhwa under section 392 IPC is confirmed and he is sentenced to imprisonment already undergone with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to deposit fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Revisionist is directed to deposit the fine within two months.

¶22

Copy of this judgment alongwith record of lower Court be transmitted to the Court concerned immediately for necessary compliance. Compliance report be submitted to this Court within three months, which shall be kept on record.

¶23

Date: 12.9.2018 P.P.

Ram Sanehi @ Terhwa v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Sanehi @ Terhwa v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhoodeo Vs State of U.P.

Ram Sumat and Other Vs State of U.P. and Others

Bihari and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Arvind Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Sangeeta and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Nasruddin Vs State of U.P.