IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Criminal Revision No. 666 of 2022

Vishaluddin

....Revisionist

Vs.

State of Uttarakhand

..... Respondent

Mr. Deep Prakash Bhatt, Advocate for the revisionist.

Mr. V.K. Jemini, D.A.G. for the State of Uttarakhand.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The instant revision is preferred against the

following:-

(A)

Judgment

and

order

dated

04.12.2021,passed in Criminal Case No.226 of 2014,

State of Uttarakhand Vs. Vishaluddin, by the court of

Judicial Magistrate, I Class, Khatima, District Udham

Singh Nagar (“the case”). By it, the revisionist has been

convicted under Section 411 IPC and sentenced to 2

years’ imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default

of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a further

period of 3 months.

(B)

Judgement

and

order

dated

29.08.2022, passed in Criminal Appeal No.35 of 2022,

Vishaluddin Vs. State of Uttarakhand, by the court of

Additional Sessions Judge, Khatima, District Udham

2

Singh Nagar (“the appeal”). By it, the appeal has been

dismissed

and

the

judgment

and

order

dated

04.12.2021, passed in the case, has been affirmed.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3.

This revision was admitted to the extent of

examining the adequacy of sentence.

4.

According

to

the

FIR,

a

theft

was

committed in the night of 09.01.2014, in the house of

the informant. A report was lodged. According to the

prosecution, on 12.01.2014, the stolen articles were

recovered from the possession of the revisionist and

others. After investigation, chargesheet was submitted

and cognizance taken. It is the basis of the case.

3.

The revisionist was charged under Section

457, 380 and 411 IPC , but he was convicted and

sentenced for the offence under Section 411 IPC alone.

4.

Learned counsel for the revisionist would

submit that the revisionist is a much poor man; he has a

family to look after; he has small children. Therefore, the

sentence may be reduced.

3

5.

A report was sought from learned State

Counsel. Learned State Counsel gives a statement that

as per Probation Officer’s Report, the economic condition

of the revisionist is very poor; he has 3 small children

and a wife back at home; his wife works as a labourer to

earn the livelihood of the family; nothing adverse has

been reported by the Probation Officer.

6.

During the course of argument, learned

counsel for the revisionist would submit that the

revisionist has also been convicted in another case

under Section 411 IPC.

7.

Having considered the another conviction

of the revisionist, this Court refrains to consider

probation for the revisionist.

8.

The impugned judgment, passed in the

case, reveals that the revisionist was enlarged on bail on

11.04.2014, which means the revisionist was in custody

for about three months then. He has been in custody

now for more than 4 months. Total, the revisionist has

been in custody for more than 7 months in this case.

9.

This Court is of the view that the interest of

justice would be served if the punishment is limited to

4

the imprisonment, which the revisionist has already

undergone in the matter. Keeping in view the economic

condition of the revisionist, the amount of fine may be

reduced to Rs. 1000/-.

10.

The

revision

is

partly

allowed.

The

conviction of the revisionist under Section 411 IPC is

upheld.

11.

The revisionist is sentenced to the period of

imprisonment, which he has already undergone with a

fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of which he shall undergo

15 days’ further simple imprisonment.

12.

The impugned judgments and orders are

modified in terms of sentence as indicated hereinabove.

13.

Let a copy of this judgment be sent

immediately to the court concerned and to the jail