Partly allowed¶10

Banwari v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Nov 2022CRLR/4028/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Banwari v. State of U.P.; CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4028 of 2022; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; Ajit Singh, J.; decided 3.11.2022; conviction under S. 411 IPC by first appellate court after trial acquittal; sentence of three months' simple imprisonment modified — ends of justice met by fine of Rs. 500/-; aged convict (63 years); offence of year 2004; no reasons assigned for denial of probation; mercy plea; revision not pressed on merits; partly allowed; P.S. Harduaganj, District Aligarh.

What did the court decide?

Revision partly allowed: instead of the accused serving the sentence of three months' simple imprisonment (with five days' imprisonment in default of fine), the ends of justice were held to be met by the accused being convicted with a fine of Rs.500/-. ¶10

Banwari Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4028 of 2022

¶3

Revisionist :- Banwari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashvni Mishra,Pramit Kumar Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶6

The instant revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 26.3.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court NO.08, Aligarh in Criminal Appeal No. 180 of 2016 arising out of Case Crime No.206 of 2004, Case No.934 of 2015, under sections 379, 411 I.P.C. Police Station Harduaganj, District Aligarh whereby the court below convicted the revisionist under section 411 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and has also imposed a fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine, the revisionist will further undergo imprisonment for a period of five days.

¶7

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist has been wrongly convicted by the appellate court. He further submits that the revisionist was acquitted by the trial court in this matter. He further submits that at present the revisionist/accused is 63 years of age and he is not pressing the revision on merit and he is seeking mercy of this Court.

¶8

Sri H.P. Gupta, learned A.G.A. submits that the impugned order is a perfect order and it should not be disturbed in revision.

¶9

After considering the rival submission, facts and circumstances of the case and considering that the offence has taken place in the year 2004 and it would be unjust at this time to send the accused to prison to serve out the sentence and considering that the convicting court has not assigned any reason why the accused was not released on probation, this Court considers it proper that if the accused is convicted with a fine of Rs.500/then end of justice would be met.

¶10

Accordingly, the instant revision stands partly allowed.

¶11

Order Date :- 3.11.2022 AU

¶12

Digitally signed by ADEEB UDDIN Date: 2022.11.09 10:47:29 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Banwari v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Banwari v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nizamuddin Malik @ Nizam Malik @ Munim Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Ravikanti and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Masoom Ali Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sarvesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sahid Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Vs State of U.P.