Jharkhand High Court
Ramraj Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party on 31 August, 2021
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 407 of 2012
1. Ramraj Prasad
2. Karamraj Prasad
Both sons of Shri Baijnath Prasad,
resident of Village & P.O.- Turiabera,
P.S.- Mango (MGM),
Dist.- East Singhbhum ... ... Petitioners
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opp. Party
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioners : Ms. Gouri Devi, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shekhar Sinha, P.P.
---
Through Video Conferencing
---
07/Reserved on 23.08.2021 Pronounced on 31.08.2021 Heard Ms. Gouri Devi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.
2. Heard Mr. Shekhar Sinha, the learned P.P. appearing on behalf of Opposite Party-State.
3. The present criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 27.03.2012 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-1, Jamshedpur in Criminal Appeal No. 198/2009 whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court affirmed the conviction of the petitioners under Section 47(a) of Bihar Excise Act, as adapted by the State of Jharkhand, (hereinafter referred to as the Excise Act), but modified and reduced their sentences to Simple Imprisonment for 06 months each and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 15 days each. The period already undergone by the petitioners during investigation and trial was directed to be set off. The criminal appeal was dismissed with the modification in the sentences of the petitioners.
24. The learned trial court, vide judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 03.07.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in G.R. Case No. 1040 of 2001 / Tr. Case No. 373 of 2009, convicted the petitioners under Section 47(a) of the Excise Act, and sentenced them to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 02 Years and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for further 02 months. However, the learned trial court acquitted the petitioners from the charges under Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. The learned trial court refused to extend the benefits under Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (Hereinafter referred to as the PO Act) to the petitioners on the ground that the Excise Act carries a minimum sentence of 3 months and fine of Rs.500/- though it was not in dispute that the present offence was the first offence of the petitioners.
Arguments on behalf of the Petitioners
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned trial court convicted the petitioners for the offence under Section 47(a) of the Excise Act, and refused to extend the benefit of the PO Act to them, stating that the said offence carries minimum sentence of three months and fine of Rs.500/-. The learned counsel submitted that merely because minimum sentence has been prescribed under the statute, the same by itself does not disentitle the petitioners from the benefits under the provisions of the PO Act. She submitted that it is not in dispute that the present offence is the first offence of the petitioners.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners referred to a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Lakhvir Singh etc. -versus- State of Punjab in Cr. Appeal No. 47-48 of 2021 decided on 19.01.2021 as reported in (2021) 2 SCC 3 763 and submitted that as per the ratio of this judgment, even when a mandatory minimum sentence has been prescribed under the statute, there is no bar in giving the benefit under the PO Act. She further submitted that the provision of the PO Act may be considered and the benefit of the same may be extended to the petitioners to secure the ends of justice.
Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State
8. The learned P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State, on the other hand, submitted that the provisions of Section 47 of the Excise Act was substituted vide Section 11 of Act 6 of 1985, which came into force after coming into force of PO Act and therefore, the learned trial court has rightly refused to extend the benefits of PO Act to the petitioners. The Excise Act is a special Act, and its amendment in the year 1985 provides minimum sentence and fine for the first offence and also for second and subsequent offences. The learned P.P. submitted that in this view of the matter, the aforesaid judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court does not help the petitioners in any manner and accordingly, benefits of PO Act cannot be extended to the petitioners. He also submits that the sentence of the petitioners as modified by the learned appellate court does not require any further modification as the learned appellate court has already taken a lenient view in the matter of sentencing.
Findings of this Court
9. The prosecution case is based on the self-statement of the Informant namely, S.I. Arvind Kumar Singh, Officer-in-charge, Sidhgora Police Station recorded on 27.05.2001 at about 21:10 hours alleging inter-alia that when he was patrolling alongwith other police personnel, he received secret information that two persons riding on one Hero Honda Motorcycle were moving with illegal country-made liquor. On this information, the 4 petitioners were apprehended on a motorcycle attempting to escape after seeing the police. In presence of independent witnesses, Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing registration No. BEP 8627 was searched. It was found that two rubber tubes wrapped in a bag were laden on each side of motorcycle. It was further found that the rubber tube contained approximate 40 litres each of illegal Mahua wine. It was also found that another rubber tube was kept in between two persons riding on Motorcycle. This tube also contains 40 litres of Mahua wine. During enquiry, they disclosed their names. They also disclosed that they were coming with the illegal wine from M.G.M. area, they used to sell wine in Sitaram Dera area. They failed to produce any valid documents regarding the possession and sale of illegal wine. Accordingly, a seizure list was prepared in presence of two independent witnesses.
10. On the basis of the self-statement of the S.I, a formal F.I.R was registered as Sidhgora P.S. Case No.74/2001 dated 27.05.2001 under Sections 272, 273 of Indian Penal Code and Section 47(a) of Excise Act and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and cognizance of the offence was taken against the petitioners under the same sections. Thereafter, charges were framed against the petitioners under the same sections which were read over and explained to them in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
11. In course of trial, the prosecution examined altogether eight witnesses to prove its case. P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 are seizure list witnesses, P.W.-3, P.W.-4 and P.W.-5 are Home-guards accompanying the raiding party, P.W.-6 is A.S.I. who is the Investigating Officer of the case, P.W.-7 is Constable and P.W.-8 is the Informant of the case.
12. The prosecution exhibited signatures of P.W-1 and 2 as Exhibits-1 and 2, Formal F.I.R., self-statement of Informant and 5 whole seizure list as Exhibits-3, 4 and 5 respectively, Chemical Examination Report of Excise Inspector as Exhibit-6, letter dated 17.08.2006 written by Officer-in-charge, Sidhgora P.S. to the A.P.P. as Exhibit-7. Three tubes were produced in court as Material Exhibits-1, 1/1 and 1/2 respectively.
13. After closure of prosecution evidence, statements of petitioners under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded wherein they denied the incriminating substances put to them and claimed to be innocent. The petitioners did not produce any witness in their defence.
14. The learned trial court considered the evidences on record and summarized its findings in Para-13 and 15 which read as under:
"13. If I am scrutinizing the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, I find that P.W.-8, Arbind Kumar Singh (ASI) alongwith Raiding Party, in which P.W.-3 is Akhilesh Ojha, P.W.-4 Surya Narayan Kanti and P.W.-5 Srikant Singh were on evening patrolling at about 8:30, they got information that two persons riding on the Motorcycle were going to sell country-made wine. They were intercepted by the informant and witness at about 9:00 A.M. at Bhuiyandih. It was found that two rubber tubes containing 40 litres of mahua wine wrapped in separate bags were seized from both the sides of motorcycle. It was further found that one rubber tuber was kept between two riding persons, motorcycle riders were enquired, they disclosed their names as Ramraj Prasad and Karamraj Prasad. In the presence of two independent witnesses, P.W.-1 Shyam Charan Tiu and P.W.-2 Lakhan Yadav, the rubber tubes were searched, each of the rubber tubes were found with 40 litres of illegal Mahua wine. When the detained persons were enquired about the valid papers, they failed to produce any documents, Thereafter, the countrymade Mahua wine was seized, seizure list was prepared which is Ext.-5, which bears the signature of two independent witnesses, Shyam Charan Tiu and Lakhan Yadav, which is Ext.-1. Seizure list Ext.-5 also carries the signature of two accused persons. Thereafter, P.W.-8 recorded his self-statement, which is Ext.-4 and after institution of F.I.R., he handed over the investigation to ASI Janardan Sharma. I do further find that Janardan Sharma sent the seized sample to Excise Inspector, Sakchi who submitted his report. It was found that 64.2 U.P. was the power of Mahuwa wine. The report of Excise Inspector is exhibited as Ext.-6. The seized article was not produced before the court. Since due to leakage, total illegal Mahuwa wine was leaked from the tube and was floated in Malkhana. Report of Malkhana-in-charge, Sidhgora Police Station is exhibited as Ext.-6
7. Prosecution has produced 3 empty rubber tubes before the court, which is Malkhana Ext.-1, 1/1 and ½ respectively.
15. Having gone through the testimony of P.W.-6, Janardan Sharma who is the I.O. of this case, I do find that he sent one sample bottle of seized country made Mahua wine to Inspector of Excise, Jamshedpur who submitted his report which is Ext.-6. On perusal of Ext.-6, I do find that during examination, the liquid was found as Mahuwa wine, which contained powers 64.2 U.P.. I do further find that it was true that the seized article was not produced before the court, but it is very much understandable by perusal of Ext.-7, which is report of Malkhana-in-charge, Sidhgora Police Station dated 12.8.06. On perusal of Ext.-7, I do further find that Malkhana-in- charge had registered his Station Diary 200/6.9.05 in which he disclosed that due to leakage in rubber, the entire Mahuwa wine floated and became grounded. I do further find that the rest ruptured tube were produced before the court, which were marked as Ext.-1, 1/1 and ½ respectively. I do further find that from the place of occurrence, one Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing BEP 8627 was seized from the place of occurrence from accused persons, which was released to one of the accused by order of C.J.M., Jamshedpur dated 9.1.2002."
15. With regard to the quantity of the seized country-made liquor, the learned trial court found that the best witnesses of this case are P.W.-6 Janardan Sharma (I.O. of the case) and the home guards who had gone for routine patrolling and they have supported the case of the prosecution in totality. With regard to the seizure list witnesses, the learned trial court recorded that from perusal of Ext.-5 and Exts. -1 and 2, it was found that P.W.-1 Shyam Charan Tiu and P.W.-2 Lakhan Yadav are seizure list witnesses and they have marked their signatures on the seizure list and they supported the case as narrated under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. P.W.-6 has also stated that the seizure list witnesses have supported the case in their statements before the police.
16. The learned trial court convicted the petitioners under Section 47(a) of the Excise Act and sentenced them to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 02 Years and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for further 02 months. However, the learned trial court acquitted the petitioners from the charges under Sections 272 and 273 of 7 the Indian Penal Code. It was not in dispute that the present offence was the first offence of the petitioners. The learned trial court refused to give the benefit of the PO Act to the petitioners on the ground that Section 47(a) of Excise Act carries a minimum sentence of 3 months and minimum fine of Rs.500/-.
17. The learned appellate court discussed the evidences and summarized its findings in Para-14 and 15 which read as under:
"14. On careful scrutiny of the evidence of the witnesses, I find that the seizure list witnesses, the informant, I.O. and members of raiding parties have been examined by the prosecution and except seizure list witnesses, all the witnesses have supported the fact that on chase, accused persons were caught at the spot alongwith motorcycle and 120 litres illicit liquor kept in three rubber tubes were seized by the police and accordingly seizure list was prepared. Further also the tubes which were seized, have also been produced in the court which are material exhibits as mentioned above.
15. Though the seizure list witnesses have not supported the seizure, but the members of the raiding party as well as informant have supported the factum of seizure of illicit liquor from the possession of the appellants and also supported the fact that the appellants were caught at the spot. Therefore, in my opinion, the ld. court below has committed no error in recording order of conviction against the appellants and hence, the order of conviction requires no interference."
18. The learned appellate court affirmed the conviction of the petitioners under Section 47(a) of the Excise Act, but considering the fact that no previous conviction has been proved against the petitioners, modified and reduced their sentences to Simple Imprisonment for 06 months each and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 15 days each and dismissed the criminal appeal with the modification in the sentences of the petitioners.
19. This Court finds that P.W.-8 is the informant of the case and as per his evidence, on the basis of secret information, the informant alongwith police party intercepted one Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing registration No. BEP 8627 and apprehended the petitioners and in presence of two independent witnesses, the motorcycle was searched and three rubber tubes containing 8 120 litres of liquor was seized in connection with which the petitioners did not show any documents. Accordingly, a seizure list of total 120 litres of liquor and the motorcycle was prepared and a copy of which was provided to the petitioners. The informant has fully supported the prosecution case as stated in the F.I.R.
20. This Court further finds that P.W.-3, P.W.-4 and P.W.-5 were members of the raiding party and they have supported the facts of arrest of the petitioners at the spot by the police and seizure of the illicit liquor from the possession of the petitioners. P.W.-6 is the Investigating Officer of the case and he had sent the seized articles for chemical examination to the office of the Excise Inspector, Sakchi. The chemical examination report of the Excise Inspector has been exhibited as Exhibit-6 which reveals that 64.2 U.P. was the power of the Mahuwa wine. P.W.-7 has produced the three rubber tubes in court which have been marked as material exhibits. P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6 have fully corroborated the evidence of the informant and P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 have corroborated the prosecution case to the extent of arrest of the petitioners on the spot and they had put their signature on the seizure list.
21. This Court finds that both the learned courts below have carefully scrutinized all the materials on record and have recorded concurrent findings regarding arrest of the petitioners on the spot and seizure of 120 litres of Mahuwa wine from the possession of the petitioners without any valid documents. This Court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments of conviction of the petitioners calling for interference under revision jurisdiction. Thus, the conviction of the petitioners is upheld.
22. Now the point for consideration is whether the learned trial court was right in refusing to extend the benefits of PO Act to the petitioners on the ground that the Excise Act carries 9 a minimum sentence of 3 months and fine of Rs.500/-, though it was not in dispute that the present offence was the first offence of the petitioners.
23. Section 3 and 6 of PO Act has no applicability to the facts of this case as the prescribed maximum punishment for the first offence under Section 47 of Excise Act is 5 years and the age of the petitioner no. 1 and 2 on the date of offence as well as on the date of passing of sentence was more than 21 years.
24. The learned counsel for the petitioners has heavily relied upon the judgement passed in the case of Lakhvir Singh (supra) decided on 19.01.2021. Before referring to the judgment passed the case of Lakhvir Singh (supra), it would be useful to refer earlier judgement passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Vikram Das reported in (2019) 4 SCC 125 decided on 08.02.2019 which has also been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the subsequent judgment of Lakhvir Singh Etc. Vs. State of Punjab (supra).
25. In the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Vikram Das (supra), the State had challenged the order passed by the High Court limiting the sentence to the period already undergone in custody but enhancing the fine in connection with offence under Section 3 (1) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the aforesaid Act of 1989) which provides for minimum sentence of six months extended to five years and with fine and therefore, the question was whether the High Court could award sentence less than the minimum sentence contemplated by the aforesaid Act of 1989. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also considered the point regarding extension of benefit of PO Act and referred to the earlier judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Vs. Ratan Lal Arora reported in (2004) 4 SCC 590 wherein grant of benefit of PO Act to a convict for offences 10 under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (where minimum sentence was prescribed) and judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Hashim versus State of U.P reported in (2017) 2 SCC 198 wherein grant of benefit of PO Act to a convict for offences under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (where minimum sentence was prescribed, coupled with a proviso that the sentence can be reduced for a term less than six months citing reasons to do so) and held in para 8 that where a minimum sentence is provided for, the court cannot impose lesser sentence.
26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikram Das (supra) was dealing with Special Act i.e., Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which was also enacted after coming into force of the PO Act of 1958 and has clearly held that where a minimum sentence has been prescribed the court cannot impose less than minimum sentence and consequently set-aside the order of the High Court reducing the sentence to less than the minimum sentence.
27. So far as the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lakhvir Singh (supra) is concerned, the convicts were convicted for offence under Section 397 Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo RI of 7 years each. Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code provides for a minimum sentence of 7 years. Before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the counsel for the State referred to the minimum sentence under Section 397 of Indian Penal Code and submitted that sentence could not be reduced and the convicts sought benefit under the PO Act.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court found that Sections 3 and 6 of PO Act was not applicable in the facts of the case and considered the provisions of Section 4 of the PO Act and took into consideration the word "notwithstanding" contained in Section 4 and was of the view that Section 4 of PO Act permits, despite 11 anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the court to release a person on bond in terms of the said section.
The legal position in connection with invocation of Section 4 was recorded in para 11 and 12 of the aforesaid judgment and ultimately considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Supreme extended the benefit of Section 4 of PO Act on completion of half sentence to the convicts of offence under Section 397 of Indian Penal Code, although, there was a prescribed minimum sentence of 7 years under the said Section.
28. The aforesaid judgment passed in the case of Lakhvir Singh (supra) was dealing with the provisions of Section 397 of Indian Penal Code and distinguished the case of Vikram Das (supra) by holding that the benefit of PO Act did not apply in case of mandatory minimum sentence prescribed by special legislation enacted after the enforcement of PO Act and in this context, it was observed in the case of Vikram Das (supra) that the court did not permit awarding of a sentence less than the mandatory sentence prescribed by the special Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lakhvir Singh (supra) in Para-13 while considering the applicability of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to offence under Section 397 IPC has observed as under:
"13. Even though, Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PC Act') prescribes a minimum sentence of imprisonment for not less than 1 year, an exception was carved out keeping in mind the application of the Act. In Ishar Das (supra), this Court noted that if the object of the legislature was that the Act does not apply to all cases where a minimum sentence of imprisonment is prescribed, there was no reason to specifically provide an exception for Section 5(2) of the PC Act. The fact that Section 18 of the Act does not include any other such offences where a mandatory minimum sentence has been prescribed suggests that the Act may be invoked in such other offences. A more nuanced 12 interpretation on this aspect was given in CCE vs. Bahubali. It was opined that the Act may not apply in cases where a specific law enacted after 1958 prescribes a mandatory minimum sentence, and the law contains a non-obstante clause. Thus, the benefits of the Act did not apply in case of mandatory minimum sentences prescribed by special legislation enacted after the Act. It is in this context, it was observed in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Vikram Das (Supra) that the court cannot award a sentence less than the mandatory sentence prescribed by the statute. We are of the view that the corollary to the aforesaid legal decisions ends with a conclusion that the benefit of probation under the said Act is not excluded by the provisions of the mandatory minimum sentence under Section 397 of IPC, the offence in the present case. In fact, the observation made in Joginder Singh vs. State of Punjab are in the same context."
29. This Court finds that the offence under the provisions of Excise Act is a special enactment dealing with goods i.e intoxicant and intoxicating drugs and liquors as defined under the Excise Act.
30. Section 47 as it stood prior to amendment in the year 1985 is quoted hereunder:
47. Penalty for unlawful import, export, transport, manufacture, possession, sale, etc. - if any person, in contravention of this Act, or of any rule, notification or order made, issued or given, licence, permit or pass granted, under this Act, -
(a) imports, exports, transports, manufactures possesses, or sells any [intoxicant], or
(b) ...................
(c) ..........................
(d) .............................
(e) ........................
(f) ...............................
(g) ......................................
(h) ............................................
he shall be liable to imprisonment for a term which may extend to [one year], or to the fine which may extend to [two thousand] rupees, or to both."13
31. Said Section 47 was amended vide Section 11 of Act 6 of 1985 which provided for minimum sentences and fines for first offence as well as for second and subsequent offences.
Section 47 as amended w.e.f. 1985 is quoted hereunder:
"Section 47. Penalty for unlawful import export transport, manufacture, possession consumption sale etc. - If any person, in contravention of this Act, or of any rule, notification, or order made, issued or given, or licence, permit or pass granted under this Act -
(a) Imports, exports, transports, manufactures, possesses, consumes or sells any intoxicant;
(b) ...................
(c) ..........................
(d) .............................
(e) ........................
(f) ...............................
(g) ......................................
(h) ............................................
he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall be liable to fine which may extend to five thousand rupees as in default of payment of fine, he shall be punished with a further imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year;
Provided that this punishment shall be -
(1) For the first offence he shall be liable for imprisonment or a term which shall not be less than three months and a fine of not less than five hundred rupees and in default of payment of fine, a further imprisonment for a term of fifteen days;
(2) for the second and subsequent offences he shall be liable for imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months and a fine of not less than one thousand rupees, and in default of payment of fine a further imprisonment for a term one month."
32. This Court finds that Section 47 of the Excise Act, as it stood prior to 1985, did not provide any minimum sentence for the offences enumerated therein, but upon amendment in the year 1985 it provided for a minimum sentence, interalia, in case of first offence, for a term which may not be less than three months and a fine of not less than five hundred rupees and in 14 default of payment of fine, a further imprisonment for a term of fifteen days.
33. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are governed by the amended Section 47 of Excise Act which introduced minimum sentences for imprisonment and fine for first as well as second and subsequent offences. This Court is of the considered view that the aforesaid amendment in Section 47 in the year 1985 is certainly after coming into force of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and Excise Act by itself is a special Act.
34. This Court is of the considered view that the ratio of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lakhvir Singh etc. (supra), is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as the said judgement was neither dealing with offence under any Special Act nor was dealing with any offence amended after coming into force of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. In the aforesaid judgment in Para-13, it has also been observed that the benefits of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 would not apply in case of mandatory minimum sentences prescribed by special legislation enacted after the Act. In view of this court, the present case will be guided by the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case State of Madhya Pradesh -versus- Vikram Das (supra) wherein the benefits of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 was not extended to offence under Special Act i.e Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 where minimum sentence was prescribed. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings, the benefit under Probation of Offender Act, 1958 cannot be extended to the petitioners. Accordingly, the learned trial court was right in refusing to extend the benefits of PO Act to the petitioners on the ground that the Excise Act carries a minimum sentence of 3 months and fine of Rs.500/-, though it was not in dispute that the present offence was the first offence of the petitioners.
1535. This Court finds that the learned appellate court has reduced the sentence of the petitioners and sentenced them for a period of 6 months with a fine of Rs.500 and as per the provisions of Section 47 of the Excise Act, the minimum sentence prescribed for the first offence is three months and a fine of Rs.500. It is not in dispute that the present offence is the first offence of the petitioners.
36. Considering that the present offence being the first offence of the petitioners and the petitioners have faced the criminal case for a long period since 2001 and more than 20 years have elapsed from the date of the incident, this Court finds that ends of justice would be served if the sentence of the petitioners is further modified and reduced to the minimum sentence of three months and fine is enhanced to Rs.5000/- each to be deposited by the petitioners before the learned court below within a period of one months from the date of communication of this order to the learned court below. The petitioners are directed to surrender before the learned court below within a period of one month from the communication of this order to the learned court below to serve the remaining sentence failing which their bail bonds will be immediately cancelled. In case, the fine amount is not deposited within the stipulated time frame, the petitioners would serve the sentence as already imposed by the learned appellate court.
37. This criminal revision petition is hereby disposed of.
38. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.
39. Let the lower court records be sent back to the court concerned.
40. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through 'E-mail/FAX'.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Mukul/Saurav