2003 Supreme(Guj) 106

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :D.P.Buch
NARSINHBHAI MANIBHAI SAIJA - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION 182 of 1996
Decided On : 02/27/2003

Headnote:

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 397 read with Section 401 - Indian Penal Code.1860 - Sections 420, 467, 468 477-A read with Section 120-B,313 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 133 and 114 (b),46,45 - Criminal Procedure Act,1973 - Sections 227,360 - Prevention of Corruption Act - section (1) (d) read with section 5 (2), section 5 (1) (d) read with section 5 (2) - Applications under Section read with Section of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been filed by three different accused persons who faced their trial before the Trial Court - Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in C. B. I. case said Court convicted the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections read with Section of the Indian Penal Code - Trial Court directed the three petitioners to suffer R. I. for six years for each of the aforesaid offences - Trial Court also directed that each of the aforesaid petitioners shall pay fine of for each of the aforesaid offences - In default of payment of fine the petitioners were directed to suffer further R. I. for two months - Judgment and conviction order dated the three petitioners preferred three different Criminal Appeals before the Sessions Court at (Rural ) - Out of them Criminal Appeal was preferred by accused - Petitioner Criminal Appeal was preferred by accused - petitioner and Criminal Appeal was preferred by accused - petitioner @ M.. The learned Sessions Judge (Rural) heard the petitioners and by a common judgment and order dated dismissed those appeals and confirmed the judgment and conviction order recorded by the Trial Court - Said Court reduced the punishment from six yeas R. I. to four years R. I. for each of the said offences - Rest of the portion of the judgment and order of the Trial Court was confirmed - Learned Sessions Judge also directed that the substantive sentence be run concurrently - Held, Person is entitled to argue on the quantum of punishment after he is declared as guilty no separate hearing is required to be given in appeals against conviction or revisions.- It is always open to the accused persons or their Advocates to advance arguments with respect to the quantum of punishment even alternatively - If that is not done the court would not be required to hear the accused persons subsequently after the pronouncement of the judgment on the quantum of punishment - Since the request was made as soon as the judgment was pronounced it is being considered. Even considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the personal difficulties of the two petitioners also I do not find this to be an appropriate case for reduction of quantum of punishment - At this stage - Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent argues that so far as the petitioner in Revision Application is concerned he has never undergone any jail sentence and therefore there need not be any order that the punishment already undergone may be treated to be sufficient - Cannot be any dispute on the same - But this aspect is not the only aspect which can be considered by the courts - If this is done then perhaps no person on earth can be sent to jail for a single day and no person can be deprived of his life even if he commits serious offence of murder under section - Any way I am of the view that these are not the grounds for reduction of punishment - It is when the punishment awarded by the trial court has been reduced by the Sessions Court - At this stage learned Standing Counsel also argued that even the learned Advocates appearing for the present petitioners before the Sessions Court did not advance any arguments for reducing the punishment and despite the said position, the Session Court has by itself reduced the quantum of jail sentence imposed on the petitioners - In view of the above I am of the view that there is no case for reduction of quantum of punishment and therefore the requests advanced by M/s A D Shah - Learned Advocates - petitioners to surrender to the custody - It is true that they did not show any law under which such an order can be passed but they both state that it is a practice of this Court to grant such time to the petitioner to surrender - Learned Advocate states that the petitioner would like to approach the Supreme Court. In that view of the matter - Petitioners stand rejected.