Partly allowed

Raj Kumar Soni v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Sept 2018CRLR/676/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The criminal revision against an old conviction for cheating regarding a motorcycle was partly allowed. The Court held no purpose served in further imprisonment given the age and time elapsed, substituting the existing sentence with a fine.

What did the court decide?

The revisionist is convicted and sentenced to the period of imprisonment already undergone with a fine of Rs. 13,000/- payable to the complainant.

Raj Kumar Soni Vs State of U.P. and Another — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 41

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 676 of 1999

¶3

Revisionist :- Raj Kumar Soni Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Revisionist :- L.K. Pathak,Ashok Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

In compliance of order dated 21.7.2018, revisionist-Raj Kumar Soni is present before this Court in person. The non-bailable warrant issued against revisionist dated 21.7.2018 is hereby cancelled.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri R.C. Srivastava, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This criminal revision has been preferred against judgment and order dated 1.4.1999 passed by Sessions Judge, Banda in Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 1998 (Raj Kumar Soni Vs. State of U.P) dismissing the appeal and upholding the conviction of revisionist as passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) / Judicial Magistrate, Banda vide judgment & order dated 6.11.1998 in Case No. 1307 of 1998 (Moti Lal Soni Vs. Raj Kumar Soni), Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Banda and sentencing him to undergo six months' R.I. under Section 406 IPC.

¶8

As per prosecution case, complainant purchased a Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing No. U.P.J.7031 from one Umesh Kumar Gupta; the revisionist took the said Motorcycle from the complainant on the pretext of birthday of his daughter, but did not return the same, hence a complaint was lodged by complainant against the revisionist. Thereafter, the revisionist was summoned to face trial under Section 406 I.P.C.

¶9

After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. Charges were framed and prosecution in support of its case examined PW-1 Moti Lal, PW-2 Sudarshan, PW-3 Munna alias Ramesh, PW-4 Umesh Kumar Gupta.

¶10

Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and after hearing parties accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo six months' R.I. under Section 406 IPC. Against this conviction, Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 1998 was filed, wherein conviction has been upheld. Hence, this revision.

¶11

From the perusal of record, it appears that on the point of

¶12

conviction both the Courts have given concurrent finding of fact and the view taken by the Courts below was a possible view, hence no interference is called for in this revision on this issue.

¶13

On the point of sentence, learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that age of the revisionist is about 55 years; he belongs to rural areas, at the time of dismissal of appeal he was in jail since 1.4.1999 to 10.5.1999 (about forty days); the incident is of year 1991, 27 years have elapsed and no fruitful purpose would be served in sending him to jail. It is further submitted that revisionist is having no criminal history and he 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 old person, 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 under Section 307 I.P.C. into under Section 324/149 I.P.C.

¶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 Sections 148/324/149 I.P.C.

¶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 and economic status of revisionist, 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 and sentenced to imprisonment already undergone with fine.

¶19

The revision is partly allowed. The revisionist is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment already undergone with fine of Rs.13,000/- under Section 406 IPC. The revisionist shall deposit

¶20

the said amount i.e. Rs.13,000/-(Rupees Thirteen Thousand) before the court concerned within one month from today, which shall be released in favour of the complainant within one month thereafter. In absence of complainant, the aforesaid amount shall be released in favour of his legal heir.

¶21

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

¶22

Order Date :- 4.9.2018 NS

Raj Kumar Soni v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar Soni v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Asif Vs State of U.P.

Kalla Vs State of U.P.

Aslam Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Taufiq Alias Rafi Alam and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Virendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others