Partly allowed

Ramsagar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC29 Nov 2019CRLA/7365/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the appeal on the issue of conviction regarding an offense under the Sanyukt Prant Abkari Adhiniyam but partly allowed the appeal on sentencing. The appellant's sentence was modified to the period already undergone along with the fine imposed by the trial court.

What did the court decide?

The conviction is upheld; the sentence is modified to the period of imprisonment already undergone and the fine imposed by the trial court.

Ramsagar Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7365 of 2019 Appellant :- Ramsagar Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Shyam Sunder Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for accused-appellant, learned AGA for State and perused the material available on record.

¶4

With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, appeal is being disposed of at the admission stage.

¶5

Accused-appellant faced trail in Sessions Trial No. 102 of 2018, State vs. Ram Sagar (Crime No. 232 of 2015) under Section 60(1) Sanyukt Prant Abkari Adhiniyam, 1910, Police Station Bindki, District Fatehpur, ultimately trial came to be heard and decided by Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court No.2, Fatehpur.

¶6

Trial Court convicted the accused-appellant under Section 60(1) Sanyukt Prant Abkari Adhiniyam, 1910 and sentenced him for one year simple imprisonment, vide judgment and order dated 16.11.2019 and with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-.

¶7

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, accused-appellant filed the present Criminal Appeal.

¶8

Learned counsel for accused-appellant did not press the appeal on merit and issue of conviction. He further submits that accused-appellant is a poor person though he was falsely implicated in the present case. However, he is not pressing the appeal on issue of conviction but considering the entire facts and circumstances of case, he must be dealt sympathetically and he should be sentenced with already undergone and enhanced fine.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for State opposed.

¶10

I have perused the impugned judgment and order of sentence carefully.

¶11

In view of argument of both the learned counsel for parties and findings recorded by the Trial Court in the impugned judgment, issue of conviction stands foreclosed and I do not find any good ground to interfere conviction. Criminal Appeal is dismissed on the issue of conviction under Section 60(1) Sanyukt Prant Abkari Adhiniyam, 1910 recorded by the Trial Court.

¶12

So far as the second argument of learned counsel for accused-appellant and sentence of accused-appellant is concerned, it is always a difficult task requiring balancing of various considerations. The question of awarding sentence is a matter of discretion to be exercised on consideration of circumstances aggravating and mitigating in the individual cases.

¶13

It is settled legal position that appropriate sentence should be awarded after giving due consideration to the facts and circumstances of each case, nature of offence and the manner in which, it was executed or committed. It is obligation of court to constantly remind itself that right of victim, and be it said, on certain occasions person aggrieved as well as society at large can be victims, never be marginalized. The measure of punishment should be proportionate to gravity of offence. Object of sentencing should be to protect society and to deter the criminal in achieving avowed object of law. Further, it is expected that courts would operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence which reflects conscience of society and sentencing process has to be stern where it should be. The Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against individual victim but also against society to which criminal and victim belong. Punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality which the crime has been perpetrated, enormity of crime warranting public abhorrence and it should 'respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminal'. [Vide: Sumer Singh vs. Surajbhan Singh and others, (2014) 7 SCC 323, Sham Sunder vs. Puran, (1990) 4 SCC 731, M.P. v. Saleem, (2005) 5 SCC 554, Ravji v. State of Rajasthan, (1996) 2 SCC 175].

¶14

Keeping in view the nature of allegation, applying the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments and having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of case, motive, nature of offence. I partly allow this appeal. I confirm appellant's conviction under Sections 60(1) Sanyukt Prant Abkari Adhiniyam, 1910 by modifying impugned order of sentence. The accused-appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone and with fine imposed by trial Court.

¶15

A copy of order be sent to Trial Court concerned for compliance and further necessary action through District Judge concerned.

¶16

Order Date :- 29.11.2019 I.A.Siddiqui

Ramsagar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramsagar 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

Virendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Smt. Lakhvinder Kaur and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amit Soni Vs State of U.P.

Kamran Vs State of U.P.

Iftekhar Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Sandhya Yadav Vs State of Up and Another