Allowed

Ram Bilash v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Feb 2019CRLR/186/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a criminal revision petition filed after a significant delay, holding that lenient view should be adopted. The court modified the sentence to the period already undergone and imposed a fine of Rs. 10,000 each to be paid by the accused.

What did the court decide?

Sentence remitted to the extent of the time already undergone; fine of Rs. 10,000 each to be paid as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C.

Ram Bilash Vs State of U.P. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 17

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 186 of 1999

¶3

Revisionist :- Ram Bilash and another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- B.N.Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate..

¶4

Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

¶5

Vakalatnama filed today by Sri Alok Kumar Singh Advocate on behalf of the revisionist is taken on record..

¶6

The Criminal Revision has been filed against the order and judgment dated 30.1.1999 passed in criminal appeal no. 10 of 1996 passed by District Judge Kanpur Nagar dismissing the appeal of the appellants and confirming the sentence passed by IInd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Case No. 275 of 1994 convicting the revisionists for two year R.I. under Section 452 I.P.C. and for six months under Section 323/34 I.P.C.

¶7

Heard Sri Alok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. for the opposite party-State and perused the record.

¶8

Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that matter is very old and he prays only with regard to the sentence. He further submitted that there is no serious injury. The revisionists has filed this revision against the impugned order passed by the court below in the year 1999 which has been heard today after laps of more than 21 years, hence in these circumstances, this Hon'ble Court may take lenient view and graciously modify the sentence awarded to them for the period undergone alongwith fine.

¶9

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 revisionists to the period already undergone alongwith fine. In case this Hon'ble Court finds it desirable to enhance the fine, the revisionists will not treat the same as enhancement of sentence.

¶10

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

¶11

order dated 30.01.1999 is desired to be modified suitably. However, there are 2 revisionists and for the reasons stated above, sentence part of the impugned orders is modified to the extent that the revisionists are sentenced for the period of sentence undergone and compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. of Rs. 10,000/- each, which will be deposited by them within 3 months from today. Each revisionist will pay 10,000/to the injured. Total Rs. 20,000/- will be paid to the injured.

¶12

It is further directed that in compliance of this order, Rs. 20,000/- will be paid in favour of injured i.e. Rajendra Kumar Mishra in the present case (in case of their death it will be paid in favour of their legal representatives/heirs) under Section 357 Cr.P.C.

¶13

In case of failure to deposit the fine as directed above, they will serve out the remainder of sentence.

¶14

A copy of this order be communicated to the trial concerned for necessary compliance.

¶15

The revision is disposed of to the aforesaid extent.

¶16

Order Date :- 18.2.2019

¶17

A. Pt. Singh

Ram Bilash v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Bilash 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

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagdeo Vs Sobran Lal Yadav and Another

Umesh Chandra Vs State of U.P.and Food Inspector

Yogendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nazir Hasan and Others Vs State of U.P.

Ganga Singh @ Rinku and 11 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajuddin @ Raja and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another