Partly allowed

Umesh Dutt v. State

Allahabad HC27 Nov 2018CRLR/856/1991

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court allowed the petition partly, setting aside a modification that imposed an additional sentence. The court held that the revisionist, already jailed for over three decades, had sufficiently served the term and ordered immediate release.

What did the court decide?

Revisionist to be released from jail forthwith as he has already undergone the requisite period of rigorous imprisonment.

Umesh Dutt Vs State — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 12

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 856 of 1991

¶3

Revisionist :- Umesh Dutt Opposite Party :- State Counsel for Revisionist :- V.K. Chaturvedi,Rajiv Sisodia Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present revision has been filed by the revisionist for setting aside the judgment and order dated 5.6.1991 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Bijnor in Criminal Appeal No. 29 of 1991 (Umesh Dutt Vs. State of U.P.) partly allowing the appeal and further modifying the impugned judgment and order dated 29.3.1991 passed by Munsif Magistrate, Najibabad in Criminal Case No.401 of 1986 to the extent that the appellant will have to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the recovery memo was not signed by the applicant, even then on the basis of that recovery memo, applicant has been convicted. He further submitted that no public witness has been produced by the prosecution and on the basis of evidence of police personnels, conviction has been recorded against the applicant. He submitted that Investigating Officer has prepared site plan after three or four days of the incident. He further submitted that according to prosecution case, two cartridges are alleged to have been recovered from the suitcase of revisionist and no public witness has been produced by the prosecution. He further submitted that lower Court has wrongly convicted the revisionist on the basis of prosecution evidence.

¶8

Lastly, it has been submitted that the revisionist is in jail from 18.09.2018 and has already undergone certain period in jail and requested that his sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶9

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

¶10

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.

¶11

Learned AGA has opposed the revision, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the period of sentence of imprisonment already undergone by the revisionist will serve the ends of justice. The revision is partly allowed . The revisionist be released from jail forthwith.

¶13

Order Date :- 27.11.2018 Junaid

Umesh Dutt v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh Dutt v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamlesh Kumar Vs Krishna Devi

H S Singh Vs State of U.P.

Ram Deo and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Shyam Sunder and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hari Shankar Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Amajut and Othersr Vs State of U.P.