Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.M. PUNCHHI AND S.C. AGRAWAL,JJ.
Jaydev Shrichand Danani, Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat, Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 825 of 1981, D/-8-4-1992.
Section 409, I.P.C. - Reduction of Sentence - Imprisonment and Fine
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 409, I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment and fine by the High Court, which set aside the earlier acquittal by the Special Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the appellant's plea for reduction of sentence, taking into account the distance of time since the offence occurred in 1969. The court acknowledged the requirement of imprisonment under Section 409, I.P.C. but sought to balance it with the appellant's circumstances.
Issues: Reduction of sentence, consideration of imprisonment already undergone, and balancing the requirement of law with the appellant's circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reduced the period of imprisonment to the time already undergone if applicable, and if not, reduced the sentence to the rising of the Court while sustaining the fine. The Special Judge was directed to verify the facts and, if necessary, keep the appellant imprisoned till the rising of the Court.
Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of with the direction to the Special Judge to summon the appellant, verify the facts, and take necessary action as per the court's directions.
Judgment
One of the convictions of the appellant is under Section 409, I.P.C. where under he has been sentenced by the High Court to simple imprisonment of 15 days and to pay a fine of Rs. 1500 / - in default whereof 6 months simple imprisonment. The High Court had convicted the appellant on setting aside the judgment and order of the Special Judge who had acquitted him. The High Court at that juncture granted the appellant 5 weeks time to surrender. In the meantime, the appellant approached this court and was granted exemption from surrender.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has only prayed for reduction of sentence so that the appellant is not incarcerated at such distance of time. The offence took place, way back in July 1969. No purpose would be served now in incarcerating the appellant at this stage. Yet the law must have its course. Section 409, I.P.C. leaves no choice with the Court, but to award some imprisonment besides imposition of fine. We are not apprised as to whether the appellant has suffered any incarceration during the stage of investigation. If he has, then the custody so suffered, which is reckonable, shall be taken to be the imprisonment already undergone for the offence committed and we reduce the period of imprisonment to that period while sustaining that of fine. But in case the appellant has not suffered any imprisonment so far, then we reduce his sentence till the rising of the Court while sustaining that of fine. To fulfil either purpose, we direct the Special Judge, District Banaskantha, Palanpur to summon the appellant and to verify these facts and should it be necessary, to keep him imprisoned till the rising of the Court as ordered as the second alternative. With these directions this appeal is disposed of.
Order accordingly.
For Citation : AIR 1992 SC 2152
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
