Gujarat High Court
A.K vs Chirlaxmi on 24 November, 2010
Author: Z.K.Saiyed
Bench: Z.K.Saiyed
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.A/925/1993 1/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 925 of 1993
=========================================================
A.K.
SHRIVASTAV - Appellant(s)
Versus
CHIRLAXMI
FINANCE P. LTD. & 3 - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MRS
MAUNA M BHATT for
Appellant(s) : 1,
MR PJ VYAS for Opponent(s) : 1 - 3.
MR HL
JANI Ld. APP for Opponent(s) :
4,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date
: 24/11/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. The appellant has preferred this appeal under sec. 377 of CrPC against the order dated 21.5.1993 passed in Criminal Case No. 294/90 by the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, whereby, the learned Magistrate has convicted the opponents and awarded sentence of imprisonment till rising of the Court and imposed fine of Rs. 50/- on each count for the offence punishable under sec. 276B read with section 278B of the Act.
2. Heard Mrs. Mauna Bhatt learned advocate for the appellant, Mr PJ Vyas learned advocate for the opponents no. 1 to 3 and Mr HL Jani learned APP for the State.
3. Mrs. Bhatt learned advocate for the appellant has vehemently argued that the learned Judge has not considered the provisions of law and the order of the learned Judge is bad in eye of law and looking to the provisions of sec. 276B of the Act, learned Judge cannot award such lesser sentence. She has also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kirpal Singh vs. State of Haryana, reported in (1999)5 SCC 649 and submitted that the impugned order requires to be quashed and set aside and the opponents no. 1 to 3 be convicted and sentenced as per the provisions of law.
4. As against this, learned advocate Mr PJ Vyas has contended that the order passed by the learned Judge is just and proper and no interference is called for by this Court and the same requires to be confirmed.
5. I have considered the submissions of both the sides and perused the papers. It appears that the sentence imposed upon the opponents no. 1 to 3 is lesser than the prescribed one and the learned Judge has committed grave error and has not considered the provisions of law. When the appellant has not filed any enhancement appeal, this matter requires to be remanded back to the trial Court.
6. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 21.5.1993 passed in Criminal Case No. 294/90 by the learned Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial court to decide the same afresh in accordance with law within a period of six months. R & P to be sent back to the trial Court.
(Z.K. SAIYED, J) mandora/ Top