Allahabad High Court
Dharam Pal And Others vs State Of U.P. on 20 October, 2020
Author: Neeraj Tiwari
Bench: Neeraj Tiwari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1900 of 1999 Revisionist :- Dharam Pal And Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- N.C.Triapthi,Anoop Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Sri Anoop Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has filed impleadment application on behalf of complainant alongwith affidavit mentioning therein that now the parties are entered into compromise and he has not objection in case revision is allowed, therefore, the impleadment applicant is not maintainable.
Heard Sri N.C. Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionists and Sri Anoop Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State.
This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., has been filed aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 17.9.1999 passed by the IInd Additional District and Session Judge, Chitrakoot in Criminal Appeal No.1/98 and the judgment and order dated 23.12.1997 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Karvi Banda in Case No.3 of 1994 (State Vs. Dharmpal and 2 others) convicting the revisionists under Section 323, 325 IPC for the three months as well as one year rigorous imprisonment.
It is contended by learned counsel for revisionists that revisionists were entitled for release by giving benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1958") but Trial Court has not granted the benefit of "Act, 1958" alongwith Section 360 Cr.P.C. as prayed and convicted the revisionists sentencing them for three months as well as one year rigorous imprisonment. It is next contended that in the present matter, Trial Court neither invoked the "Act, 1958" nor provision of Section 360 Cr.P.C. by sentencing the accused-revisionist. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Dhurukumar s/o Radhakishan Pitti and another vs. State of Maharashtra as well as order of this Court dated 15.5.2019 in Criminal Appeal No.745 of 2007 (Durgesh Chandra Vs. State of U.P.). The accused-revisionists have no criminal antecedents. Learned counsel for the revisionists further prayed for taking lenient view and extending the benefit of Section 4 of Act, 1958 to accused-revisionists.
Learned A.G.A. as well as Sri Anoop Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has submitted that he has no objection if the conviction of accused-revisionists are maintained.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this revision deserves to be allowed in part on the point of sentence. The conviction of accused-revisionist recorded by Court below is hereby affirmed and upheld. The quantum of sentence is being modified. Revisionists be released giving benefit of Section 4 of Act, 1958 on execution of personal bond of Rs.20,000/- with photograph on the condition of maintaining peace and good behaviour for a period of two years from the date of acceptance of bond by the concerned Court below. The personal bond shall be filed to the satisfaction of concerned Court below. In the event of breach of aforesaid conditions, the Court below would be competent to summon the accused and would be at liberty to pass appropriate orders for sentence against accused-revisionists in accordance with law, keeping in view the judgment of Lower Appellate Court.
With the aforesaid observations, this revision is partly allowed and judgment and order dated 17.9.1999 passed by Lower Appellate Court is modified accordingly.
Certify this judgment to the lower Court immediately.
Order Date :- 20.10.2020 Junaid