Partly allowed

Bharat Pal and Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Dec 2019CRLR/1761/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against conviction and sentence for robbery under section 394 IPC. Court upheld conviction but reduced sentence from one year six months to eight months, adjusting for time served in jail while allowing payment of fine to avoid default imprisonment.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to eight months and period undergone in jail adjusted; fine payment allowed to avoid default sentence.

Bharat Pal and Others Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 55

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1761 of 2002

¶3

Revisionist :- Bharat Pal And Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Y.S. Saxena,R.P.S. Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

As per report of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad dated 21.6.2019, revisionist no. 3-Ajai Pal son of Nithu Singh has died, hence revision in respect of Ajai Pal is abated.

¶6

Heard Sri R.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the surviving revisionists- Bharat Pal and Ramesh, Sri R.P.S. Kushwaha, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This revision has been filed against the judgement dated 21.4.1999 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad in Case No. 1379 of 1997, in Case Crime No. 88 of 1990, under section 394 I.P.C., P.S. Hajarat Nagar Garhi, District Moradabad by which, the accused persons have been convicted for the offence under section 394 Cr.P.C. and have been sentenced for one year and six months rigorous imprisonment with the fine of Rs.1,000/- each and by default, sentence of four months additional imprisonment.

¶8

Against the said judgement, an appeal was preferred by the convicted accused persons numbered as Appeal No. 34 of 1999 and the same was dismissed and conviction and sentence was upheld by judgement of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Moradabad dated 23.10.2002.

¶9

Aggrieved by the said judgement, this revision has been filed by the revisionists.

¶10

Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that he is restricting his arguments to the quantum of sentence.

¶11

Submission of learned counsel for the revisionists is that it was a case of loot of Atlas cycle and Rs.50/- and for that, sentence awarded is excessive. Further submission is that convicted revisionists have already passed about six months in jail against the awarded sentence, therefore, he has requested that said period of imprisonment should be considered to be sufficient and the awarded sentence may be reduced to that extent.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of learned counsel for the revisionists and has submitted that there is concurrent finding of both the court below. He has, however, submitted that if some reduction in sentence is made, he has no objection.

¶13

Considering the above facts and also relying upon the submissions of learned counsel for the revisionists that revisionists have already passed about six months in jail, I find it appropriate that awarded sentence should be reduced from one year, six months to 08 months. The default sentence is not disturbed as it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionists that revisionists are in a position to deposit the fine.

¶14

In view of above, conviction is upheld. The sentence is modified to mean 08 months imprisonment instead of one and half year imprisonment. It is also made clear that the period undergone by the revisionists Bharat Pal and Ramesh Pal in pursuance of sentence awarded by the court below, shall be accommodated in the modified sentence. The period underwent in jail during trial, shall also be adjusted against the awarded sentence.

¶15

Accordingly, with the above modification, the revision is finally disposed of.

¶16

The office is directed to return the lower court record along with a certified copy of this order to the concerned court for information and necessary compliance.

¶17

Order Date :- 11.12.2019 RCT/-

Bharat Pal and Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Pal and Others 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prempal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sant Lal Sharma Vs State of U.P.and Others

Shree Krishna Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shahzad Khan Vs State of U.P. and Others

Nand Lal and Others Vs State of U.P.

Tanveer Saleem Vs State of U.P. and Others