Uttarakhand High Court
Angrej Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 31 March, 2023
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 127 of 2023
Angrej Singh ...........Revisionist
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and another ............Respondents
Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. B.P.S. Mer, Brief Holder for the State.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The challenge in this revision is made to the following:-
(i) Order dated 07.10.2016, passed in Criminal Case No.1162 of 2015, State vs. Angrej Singh by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar (for short, "the case"), by which, the revisionist has been convicted under Section 411 IPC and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of `5,000/-; in default of fine, the revisionist has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two months and;
(ii) Judgment and order dated 29.03.2017, passed in Criminal Appeal No.188 of 2016, 2 Angrej Singh alias Sonu vs. State of Uttarakhand, by the court of Third Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar (for short, "the appeal"), by which, the judgment and order dated 07.10.2016, passed in the case has been upheld.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. The present revision has been admitted on the question of sentence alone.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the revisionist is a very poor man; he was implicated in many cases. In other cases, in his appeal, he has been punished with the imprisonment, which he had already undergone.
5. It is submitted that, in fact, when arrested, the revisionist was in jail for about two months and now, at present, he is in custody since 21.01.2023.
6. Learned State counsel admits these facts.
7. According to the case, a motorcycle was found missing on 16.07.2010. A report was lodged by its 3 owner. It is the prosecution case that on 26.07.2010, the motorcycle was recovered from the possession of the applicant. The record of the court below is before the Court, which reveals that, in fact, in the instant case, the revisionist moved bail application on 16.10.2010. It means, he was in custody then also for more than one month. At present, the revisionist is already in custody for more than two months.
8. One of the difficult tasks in the criminal justice system is award of an adequate sentence. Instant is a case of theft of a motorcycle. The revisionist has been in custody for more than three months now. It has not been brought to the notice that the revisionist has ever been convicted earlier.
9. Having considered the nature of offence, the position of the applicant and other attending factors, this Court is of the view that the interest of justice would be served, if the revisionist is sentenced to the period of imprisonment, which he has already undergone in this case.
10. The conviction of the revisionist is upheld, but the sentence is modified to the term of imprisonment, which the revisionist has already undergone in the case.
4
11. The impugned judgment and orders are modified to the extent as indicated above.
12. The revisionist is in jail. Let he be set free forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.
13. Let a copy of this judgment be forwarded to the court concerned and concerned jail today itself through such mode that the revisionist may not be unnecessarily detained in this case any further.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 31.03.2023 Sanjay