Allahabad High Court
Riaz Ahmad vs State on 7 May, 2026
Author: Santosh Rai
Bench: Santosh Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2006 of 1988 Riaz Ahmad ..Appellant(s) Versus State ..Respondent(s) Counsel for Appellant(s) : Kailash Pati Singh Yadav, R.c. Yadav, Raja Ram Pal Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.G.A. Court No. - 91 Reserved On 15.4.2026 Delivered On 7.5.2026 HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.
1. Heard Sri Kailash Pati Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant; Sri Purushottam Maurya, learned AGA for State and perused the material on record.
2. This criminal appeal is preferred under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., by the accused appellant Riaz Ahmad to set aside the judgment and order dated 30.8.1988, passed by the Special Judge, Ghazipur in Criminal Case No.19 of 1986 (State of U.P. Vs. Riaz Ahmad), arising out of Case Crime No.39 of 1986, under Section 3 read with Section7 of Essential Commodities Act, Police StationShadiabad, DistrictGhazipur, whereby the appellant has been sentenced to three months simple imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 3 read with Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act and on failure to deposit fine to undergo one month additional simple imprisonment.
3. Tersely, the prosecution case is that accused appellant was a licensee and a retail dealer of Fertilizers under the provisions of Fertilizer Control Order, 1957. On 6.2.1986, Sub-Inspector Rajendra Singh of P.S. Shadiabad checked the shop of the accused at about 2.00 PM. He checked the books of account i.e. stock and sale register kept at the shop and found five bags of urea short. Consequently, he took the possession of the sale register and stock register, sealed the shop of the accused and took possession of fertilizer found at the shop of the accused. He lodged a case against the accused at P.S. Shadiabad.
4. Investigating Officer collected oral and documentary evidence during the course of investigation, and on the basis of sufficient evidence submitted the charge sheet before the Court under Section 3 read with Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act. Cognizance was taken on the charge-sheet and the case was registered as Criminal Case No.19 of 1986 (State of U.P. vs. Riaz Ahmad), under Section 3 read with Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act. Charges were read to the accused, who denied the charge and demanded trial.
5. The prosecution has produced Ram Prasad PW-1, Basu Yadav PW-2, Constable Sant Ram Yadav PW-3, S.I. Rajendra Singh PW-4 and proved material exhibits Ex.Ka.1 FIR, Ex.Ka.2 duplicate copy, Ex.Ka.3-4 Page 24, 2 of stock register, Ex.Ka.5 Sale Register, Ex.Ka.6 Recovery memo, Ex.Ka.7 Site Plan, Ex.Ka.8 Charge-sheet, Ex.Ka.9 Sanction as documentary evidence in support of its case.
6. In brief the grounds of appeal are that the conviction of appellant is against the weight of evidence and conviction of appellant is illegal and perverse. The sentence is too severe and unwarranted.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant without going into the merits of the case, argued only on the point of sentence. It is submitted that the appellant has already undergone incarceration of about two months and the fine imposed by the court concerned has already been deposited by the accused appellant. Submission is that the sentence awarded by the trial court against the appellant be reduced to the period already undergone.
8. Per contra, learned AGA submits that the trial court has rightly held the accused appellant guilty and awarded simple sentence of three months alongwith fine in the present case on the basis of reliable evidence available on record.
9. The cardinal principle of sentencing policy is that the sentence imposed on an offender should reflect the crime he has committed and it should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. In operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation, sentencing process be stern where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration.
10. As regard to the sentencing policy, the Apex Court in the case of Hazara Singh Versus Raj Kumar & Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 516 has highlighted the 'sentencing policy' after taking note of its earlier decisions. Relevant para 16 and 17 of the report, reads as under:-
16. Recently, this Court in Gopal Singh v. State of Uttarakhand [(2013) 7 SCC 545 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 608 : JT (2013) 3 SC 444] held as under: (SCC p. 551, para 18)
18. Just punishment is the collective cry of the society. While the collective cry has to be kept uppermost in the mind, simultaneously the principle of proportionality between the crime and punishment cannot be totally brushed aside. The principle of just punishment is the bedrock of sentencing in respect of a criminal offence.
"17) We reiterate that in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration. We also reiterate that undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law. It is the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. The Court must not only keep in view the rights of the victim of the crime but also the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment.
11. Almost same principles on sentencing were propounded by the Apex Court in the case of State of M. P. vs Babulal & Ors (2013) 12 SCC 308, in the following terms:-
"19. In view if the above, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that one of the prime objectives of criminal law is the imposition of adequate, just, proportionate punishment which is commensurate with the gravity and nature of the crime and manner in which the offence is committed. The most relevant determinative factor of sentencing is proportionality between crime and punishment keeping in mind the social interest and consciousness of the society. It is a mockery of the criminal justice system to take a lenient view showing mis-placed sympathy to the accused on any consideration whatsoever including the delay in conclusion of criminal proceedings. The Punishment should not be so lenient that it shocks the conscious of the society being abhorrent to the basic principles of sentencing. Thus, it is the solemn duty of the court to strike a proper balance while awarding sentence as awarding a lesser sentence encourages a criminal and as a result of the same society suffers."
12. It would be just and proper to note down certain cases where the Court has considered the period of pendency of appeal and the date of incident in converting the custodial sentence into fine and sentence was reduced to the period already undergone.
13. In George Pon Paul Vs. Kanagalet and others (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1070, the appellant was found guilty for the offence punishable u/s 326 and 452 IPC. He was sentenced to confinement till rising of the Court and fine with default stipulation. The High Court on revision by the victims enhanced the sentence, however, the Apex Court did not interfere in the sentence awarded by the trial Court due to long passage of time.
14. In Nasir Vs. State of U. P. (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 136, the appellant was found guilty for the offence punishable u/s 399/402 IPC and 25 (1)(a) Arms Act and was sentenced to five years' imprisonment u/s 399/402. The occurrence had taken place about 29-years ago and the appellant remained in custody for more than six months, therefore, the sentence awarded to the appellant was reduced to the period already undergone by him.
15. In State of U. P. Vs. Siyaram and another (2010) 15 SCC 94, the appellant Jiya Lal was found guilty for the offence punishable u/s 307/34 IPC, however considering the fact that the incident had taken place in the year 1988, appellant has now become an aged person and there is nothing on record to show that he is either habitual offender or previous convict, his sentence was reduced to already undergone but fine was increased to Rs. 10,000/-. In State appeal, the Apex Court did not approve the reduction of sentence, however refused to interfere because the prosecution had been initiated in the year 1988, but fine was enhanced to Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine the appellant shall undergo two years rigorous imprisonment.
16. In Labh Singh & others Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 1125, the appellants were found guilty for the offences punishable u/s 326/324/323 r/w Section 34 IPC. The appellants were very old i.e. 82, 72 and 62 years respectively, this is an incident of 1985 and sending them to jail after a lapse of about 27 years, in the fact and circumstances of this case, would not be justified. They had already undergone part of the sentence, therefore, the Apex Court directed each appellant to pay Rs. One lakh compensation to the complainant/injured persons and their sentence was reduced to period already undergone by each of them.
17. In the case of Neelam Bahal & another v. State of Uttrakhand 2010 (2) SCC 229 where conviction and sentence of appellant u/s 307 IPC was converted into S.326 IPC simpliciter. Incident took place in the year 1987 and appellant was about 25 years old. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, The Hon'ble Apex Court reduced the sentence to the period undergone by him. Likewise, in the case of Hussainbhai Asgarali Lokhandwala v. State of Gujarat decided 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1975, the Hon'ble Apex Court modified to the period of incarceration already undergone by him while maintaining the conviction where the entire incident had occurred in the heat of moment on 07.11.2000. The Apex Court held in para 24 and 25 as under:-
24. We are in agreement with the view taken by the High Court that the entire incident had occurred in the heat of the moment and that neither party could control their anger which ultimately resulted into the fateful incident.
25. That being the position and since the High Court had brought down the charge from Section 304 Part I IPC to Section 304 II IPC, we feel that it would be in the interest of justice if the sentence of the appellant Hussainbhai Asgarali Lokhandwala is further modified to the period of incarceration already undergone by him while maintaining the conviction.
18. In this case, maximum sentence awarded is three months simple imprisonment. In the light of argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant, it reveals that non-bailable warrant was issued against the appellant and he was arrested and sent to jail and enlarged on bail thereafter, the period of detention is about two months. The fine awarded to the appellant is only Rs.500/- which has already been deposited by him in compliance of order of this Court dated 6.2.2026 and photocopy of receipt has also been submitted in this regard. This incident is said to be occurred on 6.2.1986, the appellant was held guilty by the trial court on 30.8.1988 and this criminal appeal is also pending sicne 1988 meaning thereby, the appeal is pending since 38 years. Presently, the age of the appellant is more than 65 years. No reliable evidence has been placed that the accused appellant has any criminal antecedents or habitual offender.
19. In considered opinion of this Court, keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances of the case, the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases, the time gap, the age of appellant and the nature of offence, it will serve no purpose to send the appellant to jail for serving out the remaining period of sentence but it will be just and proper and will serve the purpose of justice to reduce the sentence undergone by him.
20. In view of the above discussions, the conviction of the appellant is confirmed but the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant. The impugned judgment and order is modified to the above extent.
21. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.
22. Copy of this judgment along-with original trial court record be transmitted forthwith to the court concerned for necessary compliance.
(Santosh Rai,J.) May 07, 2026 RA