In Criminal Appeal No. 3955 of 2019, the Single Judge modified the appellant's sentence under the U.P. Gangster Act by reducing it by six months, considering the time already served, while upholding the conviction and the fine.
The sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment was reduced by six months. The conviction was upheld.
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. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3955 of 2019
Appellant :- Banti @ Upendra Krishna Pathak Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Vijay Mani Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
At the very outset, the learned counsel for the accused-appellant has submitted that instead of arguing on bail application, he will argue on the merits of appeal and he would confine his argument to the quantum of sentence.
Heard Shri Vijay Mani Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Manu Raj Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
Admit.
It is brought to the notice that the lower court record has not been received, in view of this, learned counsel for the accusedappellant has contended that since he has confined his argument to the quantum of sentence, therefore, there is no need of lower court record.
Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has submitted that the appellant Banti @ Upendra Krishna Pathak has been convicted in G.S.T. Case No. 194 2011, (State Vs. Bunti @ Upendra Krishna Pathak and another), arising out of Case Crime No. 207 of 2011, P.S. Kotwali, District Mathura and sentenced for the offence under section 2/3 U.P. Gangster Act for 03 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 5000/- fine each and in case of default in payment of fine 01 month additional imprisonment. The submission of learned counsel for the accused-appellant is that accused-appellant is in jail since
24.12.2010 and as such he has already undergone the awarded sentence.
Learned AGA has pointed out that the accused-appellant is in jail after conviction for an offence under section 302 IPC, in which he has been awarded life imprisonment and therefore, this sentence of the accused-appellant will commence after the completion of the life imprisonment award. He however, submitted that if the sentence is slightly reduced, he has no objection.
Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has submitted that if some reduction is made in the awarded sentence, it will be possible for the accused-appellant to come out from the jail a little earlier.
Considering the fact that the accused-appellant is in jail since 24.12.2010, if the sentence is reduced by 06 months the end of justice will be adequately served.
So far as fine is concerned it appears to be adequate and default sentence is also reasonable.
Accordingly, the conviction is upheld. The sentence is modified and the awarded sentence of 03 years under section 2/3 U.P. Gangster Act is reduced by 06 months.
With the above modification, the appeal is finally disposed of.
Office is directed to transmit a copy of this judgment to the learned court below for information and necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 30.5.2019 Bhanu
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the quantum of sentence under section 2/3 U.P. Gangster Act requires modification.
Whether reduction in sentence would serve the ends of justice given the time served.
Whether the conviction should be upheld.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Banti @ Upendra Krishna Pathak
State Of U.P.
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
