Partly allowed

Sadik Alias Tinu v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC22 Dec 2020CRJA/43/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant was convicted under Section 136 of the Electricity Act, 2003, for stealing electric materials and sentenced to imprisonment and a fine. The High Court modified the fine from ₹2000 to ₹500 due to the appellant's indigence, holding that the ends of justice would be served by reducing the fine.

What did the court decide?

The fine imposed on the appellant was reduced from ₹2000 to ₹500.

Sadik Alias Tinu Vs State of Uttarakhand — Property and Title | Uttarakhand HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Criminal Jail Appeal No. 44 of 2020

Sadik alias Tinu

...... Appellant

Vs.

State of Uttarakhand ..... Respondent

¶7

Mr. Mohd. Matloob, Amicus Curiae for the Appellant. Mr. Lalit Miglani, AGA and Ms. Lata Negi, Brief Holder for the State.

¶8

JUDGMENT

¶9

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

¶10

The instant appeal is preferred against order dated 25^th August, 2020, passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 10 of 2020, State vs. Sadik alias Tinu, by the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar (‘The case’). By this order, the appellant has been convicted under Section 136 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and sentenced to 9 months 12 days imprisonment and a fine of ₹ 2000/. The order also stipulates that in default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month.

¶11

The case is based on a charge-sheet, which relates to theft of electric line, material etc. According to the case, the appellant removed electric line and material from a transformer. The appellant pleaded guilty. Based on his plead guilty, he has been sentenced as aforesaid apart from civil liability, which was fixed at ₹62,000/- .The appeal is received from jail.

¶12

Learned Amicus Curiae would submit that the appellant did not get effective legal assistance at trial. He has undergone the substantive sentence, but he is too poor to pay even ₹2000/- as fine. Based on one recovery, he was implicated in 19 cases, in which, he

¶13

¶14

pleaded guilty and now if the fine is not reduced, the appellant will have to remain in jail for a longer period only because of his inability to pay a fine.

¶15

Learned State counsel would submit that based on plead guilty, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced.

¶16

It is true that the appellant has been convicted on the basis of his plead guilty. The appeal in such circumstances can be maintained only to the extent or legality of the sentence as provided under Section 375 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. In the instant case, what is being argued is the extent of the sentence. It is being argued that the appellant is so poor that he is not able to pay the fine amount and in that eventuality, he will have to remain in jail for a longer period.

¶17

The facts are admitted that on 21.07.2019, according to the prosecution, certain electric materials, in fact, wire was recovered from the appellant and based on it, in 19 cases, charge-sheets have been submitted. Appellant pleaded guilty and the substantive sentence is imprisonment for 9 months and 12 days. The appellant is not in a position to secure his freedom due to his economic condition.

¶18

Having considered this and all the attending circumstances, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be served if the fine of sentence is reduced from ₹2000/- to ₹500/-.

¶19

The fine imposed upon the appellant is reduced from ₹2000/- to ₹500/-.

¶20

The impugned order dated 25^th August, 2020 is modified to the extent, as above.

¶21

The appeal is partly allowed accordingly.

¶22

¶23

Let a copy of this judgment be forwarded to the learned Court below for compliance.

¶24

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 22.12.2020

¶25

Kaushal

Sadik Alias Tinu v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadik Alias Tinu v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ratan Singh Bisht Vs State of Uttarakhand

Amrit Rathi Vs State of Uttarakhand

Irfan Ali Ansari Vs State of Uttarakhand

Pankaj Kumar Vs State of Uttrakhand

Satender Vs State of Uttarkhand

Pravesh Kumar Vs Manimohan Vishwas