Full Text
CRL.REV.P. 254/2011
NAGESH GHAND MISHRA Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nishit Kush, Mr. S. Sharma, Mr. Sanjeev K. Baliyan and
Mr. Kuldeep Singh, Adv.
Through: Mr. Navin Sharma, APP
01.06.2011
ORDER
1. The learned counsel for the petitioner has very fairly stated that he is not challenging the finding of the conviction of sentence and his prayer is confined only to question of sentence. It has been stated that the petitioner was convicted to undergo SI of six months each for the offence under Section 279/338 IPG and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, he is further sentenced to undergo SI for a period of 15 days. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
2. On appeal by the petitioner, both the conviction was upheld but the period of sentence was reduced to three months each for the offence under section 279/338 IPG to be run concurrently. It has been contended that fine has already been paid. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner has already undergone sentence of more than one month as he was arrested on 2011:DHC:1979[7] 30.04.2010. It is further stated that the petitioner was driving a Contesa car which was not a commercial vehicle, and therefore, a lenient view may be taken.
3. Having regard to the facts of the case that the petitioner has already undergone sentence of more than one month and the fact that he was not driving a commercial vehicle, I feel the interest of justice would be served in case the sentence of imprisonment is reduced from the period of three months to the period already undergone by the petitioner subject to the condition that the fine is enhanced. Accordingly, the period of substantive sentence is reduced to one month each to be run concurrently for both the offences under Section 279/338 IPC and the fine is increased to a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for an offence under Section 279 IPC. Out of the fine amount as and when deposited, a sum of Rs.9,000/- shall be paid to the injured as compensation.
4. With these directions, the revision petition is partially allowed.
5. However, this may not be treated as a precedent as the order has been passed in view of the peculiar facts of the case.
6. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Trial Court.
7. Dasti. V.K. SHALI,J JUNE 01, 2011 KP <$)