Allahabad High Court
Raksha Ram (Jail Appeal ) vs State Of U.P. on 30 May, 2016
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 21 AFR Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 267 of 2012 Appellant :- Raksha Ram (Jail Appeal ) Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Jail Appeal Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
This is highly alarming and shocking to know that this Jail Appeal though admitted in the year 2012 (16.12.2012) and lower court record was also summoned but the appellant despite his suffering entire detention period for two months R.I. has not been let free by the concerned Jail Authority. In this case, trial took place under U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.
Obviously, record reflects that this Gangster Act was numbered as 1A/12, State Vs. Raksha Ram and charge under Section 3(1) U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 was preferred on 2.1.2012 and on the same day judgment was pronounced on the plea of guilty raised by the appellant himself. It was specifically pleaded by the appellant that he may be sentenced with period already undergone, meaning thereby it was desire of the appellant that he had no objection against the charge and he wanted that he be released by imposing punishment, which is restricted to the period already undergone by him. But the trial court instead of acting on his plea imposed two years R.I. coupled with fine of Rs.5000/- and in case of default one month additional imprisonment was prescribed, meaning thereby that the appellant is in jail since January, 2012 and counting from that period two years R.I. will come to an end on 2nd of January, 2014 and then in the absence of non-payment of fine Rs.5000/-, the appellant shall be further detained for additional one month period, which will expire after 30 days period counting from 3rd January, 2014.
Obviously that period too has expired in February, 2014. Then it is obvious that the sentence imposed by the trial court has been suffered by the appellant. One of the grounds of appeal raised in the memo of appeal as ground no.2 also claims that appellant pleaded for specific sentence of period undergone before the trial court. But the trial court did not heed to that plea and imposed two years R.I. coupled with fine.
In view of above, it can be conveniently inferred that the accused appellant has no objection against his conviction. He only sought favour of the trial court to impose sentence which is restricted to the period already undergone by him in detention.
In this view of the matter, the conviction is maintained at appellate stage and no useful purpose will be served by unnecessarily overhauling the various principles laid down for enhancing or decreasing the sentence as the sentence imposed stood suffered by the appellant and nothing remains to be considered for quantum of sentence at this juncture.
It is obvious that the appellant wanted freedom from detention and which freedom has legally accrued to him while he suffered two years detention as per direction of the trial court. Even, in the event of non deposition of fine, the appellant cannot be detained in custody any further as he has suffered additional imprisonment so imposed in case of default in payment of fine.
In this view of the matter, when the appellant has already suffered the entire sentence, let the appellant Raksha Ram be set free forthwith in this case, if he is not wanted in connection with any other case.
However, it is desirable to observe that in such cases where the appellant is suffering sentence then it is obligatory upon the concerned Jail Authority to take into account the period of detention imposed on the appellant by the trial court and to refer the matter to the concerned trial court and the concerned Appellate Court, in cases, where the period of detention is either expiring or going to expire shortly. Negligence on the part of Jail Authorities is highly distressing and it should be examined that such instances like the present one never recur.
It is directed that the Jailor District Jail, Gonda shall set free appellant Raksha Ram from custody forthwith in Gangster Case No.1A/12, State Vs. Raksha Ram charge under Section 3(1) U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 in case crime no.382 of 2010, if he is not wanted in connection with in any other case.
Copy of this order be sent through Fax to the concerned Sessions Judge, District Magistrate Gonda with direction to ensure compliance of the aforesaid order forthwith.
This Jail Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 30.5.2016 RK