Partly allowed

Dashrath Singh and Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Nov 2022CRLA/1848/1995

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal against conviction and sentence for offences under the Arms Act, the High Court held that the fine imposed on appellants should be adjusted against the excess period of judicial custody spent during investigation and trial.

What did the court decide?

The fine of Rs. 500/- on each appellant was adjusted against the excess period spent in judicial custody; appellants not required to surrender.

Dashrath Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 93

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1848 of 1995

¶3

Appellant :- Dashrath Singh And Others Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- V.S. Kushwaha Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.

¶5

List revised. Mr. V.S. Kushwaha, learned counsel for the appellants assisted by Mr. Udai Narayan Singh, Advocate and Mr. Sunil Tripathi, learned A.G.A. are present.

¶6

The present criminal arises out of the impugned judgement and order dated 21.10.1995 passed in Sessions Trial No. 13 of 1990 (Case Crime No. 134 of 1989) by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (D.A.A.), Lalitpur convicting and sentencing the appellants, Dashrath Singh and Thena, under Section 25 Arms Act, to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- each, with default stipulation of one month additional imprisonment, in case, fine was not paid by the accused-appellants.

¶7

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that both the accused-appellants were arrested on 26.12.1989 during a police raid and they are in judicial custody in jail since 27.12.1989. The accused-appellants were granted bail by the Court concerned vide order dated 05.07.1990. Bail bond of accused-appellant no. 1, Dashrath was accepted on 06.05.1990 and that of the accused-appellant no. 3, Thena on 13.07.1991. Thus, during investigation and trial, appellant no. 1 Dashrath has remained in jail for 1 year 4 months and 10 days and appellant no. 3, Thena has remained in jail for 1 year 6 months and 17 days.

¶8

Learned counsel for accused-appellants has stated at the Bar

¶9

that he does not want to contest the case on merits. He is only contesting the case of the accused-appellants on the period of detention spent by the accused-appellants in jail, which is more than the sentence imposed upon them by the Sessions Court and that the appeal may be disposed of accordingly. The appellants may not be sent to judicial custody again. It has also been argued that the accused-appellants have not deposited the fine of Rs. 500/- imposed upon each of them. This fine may be adjusted against the additional period of time spent by them in jail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. for the State has not denied the assertions made by the learned counsel for the accused-appellants regarding the period spent by the accused-appellants in jail during investigation and trial.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the accused-appellants, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and perused the record.

¶12

From a perusal of the lower court record, it is evident that the period given by the learned counsel for the appellants, which the accused-appellants have spent in jail, is correct. The incident has occurred on 27.12.1989. In the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., recorded on 10.10.1995, age of the accused-appellant Dashrath has been mentioned as 39 years and that of accused-appellant Thena 26 years. Thus, after a gap of 27 years, presently accused-appellant Dashrath is aged 66 years and accused-appellant Thena is aged 53 years.

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular, the fact that since Dashrath has spent 4 months and 10 days more than the sentence imposed upon him and the time spent by accused-appellant, Thena, in jail exceeds by 6 months and 17 days against the sentence imposed upon him, this Court thinks it reasonable and justified that the fine of Rs. 500/-

¶14

imposed upon each of the accused-appellants may be adjusted against the excess period spent by both the appellants in judicial custody during investigation and trial. The appellants are on bail, they need not surrender before the Trial Court for realization of the fine imposed against them.

¶15

In view of the above, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed and sentence modified accordingly.

¶16

Let a copy of this order along with the lower court record be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.

¶17

Order Date :- 1.11.2022 Brijesh Maurya

¶18

Digitally signed by BRIJESH KUMAR Date: 2022.11.01 17:22:31 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dashrath Singh and Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dashrath Singh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sajid Vs State of U.P.

Amit Kasana Vs State of U.P.

Ankur @ Sagar Vs State of U.P.

Reshma Saroj and Another Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Urfi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Kanak Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others