Partly allowed

Nathu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Jan 2019CRLR/527/1995

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court modified the sentence in a criminal revision filed to challenge an order upholding conviction for IPC 325 and 323 offences. Considering the long delay of over 20 years, the court directed the revisionist to serve the period already undergone and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000 to the injured party.

What did the court decide?

Sentence modified to period undergone; fine of Rs. 5,000 imposed to be paid within two months.

Nathu Vs State of U.P. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 17

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 527 of 1995

¶3

Revisionist :- Nathu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- R.S. Tiwari,Satendra Nath Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the revisionist is taken on record..

¶6

This revision has been filed against the judgment and order passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Banda in Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 1993 dismissing the aforesaid criminal appeal on 26.4.1995 and upholding the judgment of the C.J.M., Banda in case no. 1577 of 1991 P.S. Bisanda, District- Banda convicting the revisionist to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 325 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment of six months under Section 323 I.P.C. on 27.8.1993.

¶7

Heard Sri Satendra Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶8

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that matter is old and he prays only with regard to the sentence only. He further submitted that there is not any grievous serious injury on the person of the injured, Jagannath. The revisionist filed this revision against the impugned order passed by the court below in the year 1995 which has been heard today after laps of more than 20 years. In the above circumstances this Hon'ble Court may take lenient view and graciously modify the sentence awarded to him for the period undergone alongwith fine.

¶9

This Court has placed reliance in the decision of Suresh Vs. State of U.P. Criminal Revision No. 597 of 1990 decided on 18.02.2016 relevant part of the above judgment read thus:-

¶10

"Submission of learned counsel is that alleged offence is said to have been committed on 2.11.1988. Further, sending the revisionist to jail after a period of 28 years would not be at all in the interest of justice. Moreover, revisionist has already served out nearly one month in jail. Learned counsel does not address the Court on merit of the revision but confines his plea on the quantum of sentence. He states that raise in amount of fine will not amount to enhancement.

¶11

Revision is dismissed. Judgment and orders passed by courts below are confirmed with the modification that revisionist is sentenced to period undergone in addition to fine of Rs. 5000/-. He will deposit a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as fine, within three months. In default of payment, revisionist will face further simple imprisonment of one month".

¶12

In the above circumstances, this Hon'ble court may take a view of leniency and graciously modified the sentence awarded to revisionist to the period already undergone along with fine. In case this Hon'ble Court finds it desirable to enhanced the fine, the revisionist will not treat the same as

¶13

enhancement of sentence.

¶14

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, considering the facts and circumstances of the case along with case law cited above, I am of the view that sentence part of the impugned order dated 26.4.1995 is desired to be modified suitably.

¶15

However, for the reasons stated above, sentence part of the impugned orders is modified to the extent that the revisionist is sentenced for the period of sentence undergone along with fine of Rs. 5,000/- which will be deposited by him within 2 months from today.

¶16

It is further directed that in compliance of this order Rs. 5,000/- will be paid in favour of Injured Jagannath in the present case (in case of his death it will be paid in favour of his legal representatives/heirs) under Section 357 of the Cr.P.C. In case of failure to deposit the fine of Rs. 5,000/- as directed above, order of court below will survive again automatically.

¶17

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

¶18

The revision is, accordingly, disposed of..

¶19

Order Date :- 24.1.2019

¶20

A. Pt. Singh

Nathu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nathu 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

Gyan Chand and Another Vs State and Another

Smt. Mamta Tickku and Another Vs Prabhat Narain Tickku and Another

Bal Kishan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shah Nawajuddin Vs State of U.P.

Atal Dixit and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Smt. Seema Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another