The High Court modified the sentence imposed decades ago in a Section 354 IPC case. The conviction was affirmed, and the imprisonment was reduced to the time already undergone, with a fine of Rs. 5,000.
Sentence reduced to period undergone; fine of Rs. 5000 imposed payable in 3 months.
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. - 17
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1776 of 1992
Revisionist :- Jagendra Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Veer Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
The Criminal Revision has been filed against the order and judgment dated 03.12.1992 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Bijnor, in Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 1992 (Jogendra Singh Vs. State of U.P.) dismissing the appeal and confirming the conviction passed by IIIrd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor in Case No. 299 of 1990 under Section 354 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali City, District Bijnor vide the judgment and order dated 10.02.1992 sentencing the revisionist 6 months rigorous imprisonment.
Heard Sri Hemendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the opposite party-State and perused the material available on record.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that as the matter is very old and he prays only with regard to the sentence. The revisionist has filed this revision against the impugned order passed by the court below in the year 1992 which has been heard today after laps of more than 27 years, hence in these circumstances, this Hon'ble Court may take lenient view and graciously modify the sentence awarded to revisionist for the period undergone.
Considering the law laid down by Apex Court in Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad Versus State of Maharashtra (arising out of S.L.P. (CRl.) No. 6287 of 2011) , this Hon'ble court may take a view of leniency and graciously modified the sentence awarded to revisionist to the period already undergone alongwith fine. In case this Hon'ble Court finds it desirable to enhance the fine, the revisionist will not treat the same as enhancement of sentence.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, considering the facts and circumstances of the case alongwith case law cited above, I am of the view that sentence part of the impugned order dated 03.12.1992 is desired to be modified
suitably. Reasons stated above, sentence part of the impugned order is modified to the extent that revisionist is sentenced for the period of sentence undergone and fine of Rs. 5000/-, which will be deposited by him within 3 months from today. In case of failure to deposit the fine as directed above, revisionist, Jagendra Singh, will serve out the remainder of sentence.
Hence, revision is, partly allowed . Conviction of lower court is affirmed and sentence modified accordingly.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
A copy of this order be communicated to the trial court concerned for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 25.2.2019 Vibha Singh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether sentence passed by lower court in a case from 1992 heard 27 years later should be modified in light of leniency principles.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad Versus State of MaharashtraRelied on¶8
Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad Versus State of Maharashtra (arising out of S.L.P. (CRl.) No. 6287 of 2011)
Suresh Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
