Partly allowed

Mohd. Danish v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC29 Sept 2020CRLR/113/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision against conviction under the Essential Commodities Act, the Court rejected the availability of merits arguments as the conviction was not challenged. The Court enhanced the fine and reduced the substantive sentence to the period already undergone, with a provision for additional imprisonment in case of non-payment of the enhanced fine.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to period undergone; fine enhanced to Rs. 20,000; additional six months imprisonment in default of fine payment.

Mohd. Danish Vs State of Uttarakhand — Service and Employment | Uttarakhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Criminal Revision No. 113 of 2020

¶3

Mohd. Danish …Revisionist

Vs.

State of Uttarakhand

...Respondent

Ms. Soniya Chawla, learned counsel for the revisionist. Mr. Ranjan Ghildiyal, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

Dated: 29^th September, 2020

¶9

Hon’ble N.S. Dhanik, J.

¶10

This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 31.01.2020 passed by learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital in Criminal Appeal No. 129 of 2017, whereby he has confirmed the judgment and order dated 18.08.2017 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital in Criminal Case No. 294 of 2013, whereby the revisionist was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced to undergo two years simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall serve further three months simple imprisonment.

¶11

Learned counsel for the revisionist does not press this revision on merits. She submits his arguments only on the quantum of sentence. Since the revisionist’s counsel does not challenge the conviction, this Court need not go into the merits of the case and, accordingly, the conviction under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act is maintained.

¶12

¶13

Learned State Counsel does not seriously object to the prayer made on behalf of the revisionist. He fairly concedes that revisionist has served about ninety five days in the jail.

¶14

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is a poor person and he is the only bread earner of his family. She further submits the minimum sentence provided for the aforementioned offence is three months and the maximum sentence for the same is seven years. She submits that revisionist has already served about ninety five days in the jail and prays that the substantive sentence, awarded to the revisionist, may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶15

Since the revisionist has served ninety five days imprisonment and also considering the nature of the case, I am of the considered view that this much of sentence, as served out by the revisionist, is sufficient to serve the purpose.

¶16

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist and the fact that the revisionist is a poor person, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be subserved, if the jail sentence of the revisionist is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Consequently, the revision is dismissed on merit. However, it is partly allowed on the quantum of sentence and the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by the revisionist. The sentence of fine is enhanced from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- The enhanced amount of fine shall be deposited before the trial Court within fifteen days from today. Amount, if any, deposited earlier shall be adjusted. If the revisionist fails to deposit the enhanced amount of fine within fifteen days from the date of production of

¶17

¶18

certified copy of this order, he shall serve the additional six months imprisonment. The impugned judgment and order stands modified to the extent indicated above.

¶19

Let a copy of this judgment and order along with the LCR be sent back to the Court concerned for doing the needful at the earliest.

¶20

(N.S. Dhanik, J.)

¶21

Mohd. Danish v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Danish 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

Akash Kumar Alias Bhindi Vs State of Uttarakhand

Ram Niwas Vs State of Uttarakhand

Madan Pal Sehdev Vs State of Uttarakhand

Iltaf Vs State of Uttarakhand

Nikhil Saxena Vs State of Uttarakhand

Krishan Kumar Verma Vs State of Uttarakhand