High Court · 2010

21 112009 passed andaffirm ed t he convict ion and sent ence of in all t he t hree t he t o t he inst it ut ionoft he revisionpet it ionsreferred t hisCourt concurredwit h t he On 17122009when t herevision pet it ionscam e up for hearing ret um edbybot ht he Court sbelowt o t heext ent of convict ionof t he SukhdevSinghand adm it t edt he 1 r 0 0 Z C5 I e Z I heard learnedcounselfor t he part ieson t he pointof c6 uant um of sent encee I t has been by leam edcounselfor t he t hat a Z t he sent ence of 2 years awardedt o t he 1S On excessiveside and t o t he m aybe orderedt o for lenient view He has also prayedt hat t he sent ences awarded liabilit y in all t he t hree cases beingrelat edt o com m on and has referredt o t he decisionof ApexCourt in t he case ofSt at e ofPunj abVse Madan Lal 2009 RCR CrlJ602 On t he ot her handlearned counsel for hasprayedt hatt heflne am ount t oom eager Thus it has been prayedt hat t he Court shall leastt o t he value of t he upont he paym entof com pensat ionat in all t het hreecases iS lean t owards t he cheques inst eadof fine so t hat j ust iceshouldbe done t o t he counsel for Um a 11: 50 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh There is force in t he cont ent ionraisedby leam ed t he t he Magist rat eas per his im posedt he finet o t he m axim umlim it of Rs30001 each But I n t hese cases JOYTI RANI 1 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document e 60I r e m r 1 Ij 70 0 0 I I e 2v e L11 r t 4 1 0 1 t 1 9 Z Q 4 wit h t his flee bit e sent ence t he very purpose of enact ingt he provisions under t he I nsent s Act are What bene8t t he would have derived wit h t he languishingof t he pet it ionerin j ai12 The com plainantm ust have been benefit swho has alreadypart edwit h an am ount of Rs8 lacs while t he in t erm s of m onet ary sent ence of im prisonm entawarded t o t he pet it ionerseem s t o be on higher side and needsreduct ion I t is not and as set t ledby t he Honble ApexCourt in t he case of Pankaj bhaiNagj ibhaiPat eI Vse St at e of Guj aratand Anre 2001 Suresh RCR 343 followed byMadrasHighCourt in t he case of Sugant hi Kum ar VseJagadeesan200101RCR Crlel87 t hat under Sect ion357639CrPC can be orderedonlywhen a Cburt im posesa of which fine does not form a part When once sent ence of Sne is set aside t his Court cannot order unless t he sam e has been for any am ount fact sand circum st ancesoft he case beyondRs0001m Thus in t he t his Court is oft he opiniont hat lnt erest ofj ust icewould be subserved if t he case t o t he lacs in each ofRs5 is direct edt o pay a inst eadand place 0 1 c1 fine of Rs30001 as has been direct ed by t he Court s below The would be ent it led t o get t he aforem ent ionedsum of Rs 43 lacs ofsent ence Com ingt o t he pleaof t he pet it ionerwit h regardt o concurrent in t he case ofMadan Lal 6supralin a som ewhatsim ilar sit uat iont he HonbI eApexCourt had an occasion t o deal wit h t he m auer I n t hat Case t he accused was convict ed ln t hreeseparat e for an offenceunder Sect ion 138 of I nst rum ent sAct on account of of different chequest his Court while of t he view t hat all t he t ransact ionsrelat e t o t hefam ilyof t herein orderedt hat t he sent ences upon t he accusedin t he cases shall run The Honble Suprem eCourt while relyingupon t he cases of Mohd Akht har Assist ant Collect orof Cust om s Prevent ionlAhm adabad 82 Orse AlR discussingt he issue and I brahim Ahm ed Bhat t i Vse 1988 SC 2143 and St at e of Maharasht ra Vse Naj akat Mubarak AI i upheldt he view t aken by t his Court and RCR Crle1778 dism issedt he appealoft he St at e Um a 11: 50 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh eveW JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document r 71 J5 f 9 pm h f m Q 0 0 I C5 Z r I e b QO a7 Z t l 5 I nShafiq Vse St at e ofMePe 201021RCR Crlel95 t here were and so as t he appealt he Court followingt he rat io decided oflaw laiddown in t he cases of Mohd Akht ar and Madan Lal orderedt hat t he sent ence of one year awat dedin bot h t he cases pra9 t o run in hand t he accused issued different chequest o so as t he t he singleliabilit yof Rs8 lacs decided I n t he cases and t hus t here is no legalem bargoin orderingt he sent ences Thereforein t he of discussionabove t he sent ence of t he allt he t hree cases which shall run The t ot allingt o one yeareach in RsA3 lacs t o t he vij ayanVs Sadanandan Ke St Anre under Sect ion 35739CrPC I n t he event of in viewoft he dict a laid down in t he case of RCR Crlel 969 t he Wit h t hese t he inst ant revision st and 1 1 ARVI ND KJMARI JUDGE July52010 Jit en 71 V V 1I l Um a 11: 50 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh 0 5 JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 9vPe5