1
Court No. 28
Criminal Revision No. 201 of 2000
Rajesh Kumar Tiwari .......................Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. ...............Opposite Party
Hon'ble Alok K. Singh, J.
This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated
24.05.2000 passed by Sri P.N. Rai, the then Sessions Judge, Unnao in Criminal
Appeal No. 09 of 2000 confirming the judgment and sentence passed by Sri A.K.
Singh, IIIrd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Case No.1540 of 1999
convicting the revisionist under Section 408 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo
three years’ R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default three months’ R.I.
Heard Sri R.N.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Harish
Chandra learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the material on
record.
Learned counsel for the revisionist confines his submissions on the
point of quantum of sentence only and, therefore, this Court is not adverting to other
grounds of revisions. For the same reasons it is also not necessary to mention any
details of the facts giving rise to this revision.
From the perusal of the record it appears that the revisionist was working as a
Sales Man in Sadhan Sahkari Samiti, Unchgaon, Police Station Bihar, District Unnao
and the allegation against him is that of misappropriation of an amount of Rs.7600/-.
His conviction has been upheld by the concurrent judgments of both the courts
below. There is no reason to arrive at a different conclusion in this case. The
conviction is therefore maintained.
In respect to the quantum of sentence learned counsel for the
revisionist makes following submissions:–
(1) The incident took place, way back in the year 1985 i.e. about 24 years
before.
2
(2) The revisionist has already undergone a period of 20 days of
imprisonment during trial and during pendency of this appeal. This
factum has been verified by the learned A.G.A. after going through the
lower court record.
(3) It is said that the amount of fine may be enhanced and sentence of
imprisonment may be reduced to the period already undergone.
(4) He also submits that neither the revisionist is a habitual offender nor a
previous convict and as such a lenient view may be taken in respect of quantum of
sentence and it may be accordingly reduced.
Learned A.G.A. has nothing to say substantial against it except that the
conviction has been concurrently upheld by both the courts below which should not
be disturbed.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the conviction
recorded concurrently by both the courts below under the aforesaid section is upheld
but the sentence is modified in the following manner:–
Period of imprisonment is reduced from three years to 20 days of simple
imprisonment which he has already undergone but the amount of fine is enhanced
four times i.e. from Rs.5000/- to Rs.20,000/-, to be deposited within two months.
Accordingly the revision is partly allowed.
Let a copy of this judgment and the lower court record be sent back
through Registrar of this Court for necessary compliance.
05.01.2010
PAL/Crl.Rev. No. 201 of 2000