Uttarakhand HC Allows Revision of Case on the Basis of Quantum of Sentence

Must Read

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi,...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions,...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by...

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour...

Follow us

A Single Judge Bench of Hon’ble Justice N.S. Dhanik, heard the case of Mahboob v. State of Uttarakhand via video conferencing.

A criminal revision was preferred against the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar/2nd FTC Haridwar District Haridwar, where the revisionist was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC (Dishonestly receiving stolen property) and was sentenced to undergo six months imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 3,000/-.

Facts of the case

An FIR was lodged by the informant alleging that on 14.01.2003, individuals of the Intelligence Department namely Devendra Singh, Surendra Kumar, Madanlal and Shiv Om Sharma were sitting at Material Gate, Watch Tower-5. At about 4 A.M. to 6 A.M., three persons were seen at the Railway Line along with some goods, and the moment they ran to catch them, they threw the said goods in the bushes and started running from there. 

During this incident, an individual namely Mahboob, the revisionist, fell on a stone and when he sustained injuries, the above-mentioned officers of the Intelligence Department caught him. The other co-accused fled away from the spot. Along with the revisionist, the officers searched the location wherein they retrieved the goods, which were thrown in the bushes. The said goods were weighed and its weight came to 152 Kg.

Contentions of the Revisionist

Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted his arguments only on the quantum of sentence, and did not press the revision on merits. 

Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that the revisionist was a poor person and he was the sole bread earner of his family. On instructions, he submitted that the revisionist had already served around two and a half months in jail and prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the revisionist may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

Contentions of the State

Learned State Counsel submitted that there was no illegality in the impugned judgment of the Trial Court and the same had also been affirmed by the First Appellate Court. It was further submitted that there was neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the revisionist nor any sympathy called for in the case.

Court’s Observations

The Court opined that since the revisionist had already served around two and a half months imprisonment, that much of sentence as served by the revisionist, was sufficient to serve the purpose.  Further, the Court, considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the fact that the revisionist was a poor person, the ends of justice would be subserved if the jail sentence of the revisionist was reduced to the period already undergone by him. 

Court’s Decision

The Court dismissed the revision on merits. However, it was partly allowed on the quantum of sentence and the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone by the revisionist. 

The fine was enhanced from 3,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-. The already deposited fine would be adjusted in the enhanced amount of fine, as directed by the Court. If the revisionist failed to deposit the enhanced amount within two months from the date of the judgement, he will have to serve six months additional imprisonment.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention order of the husband of...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour killing against her by her...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus as she claimed that her...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd v. ARG Outlier...

Just Because the Deceased Did Not Have License, Does Not Imply He Was Negligent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Hemlal & Others v. Dayaram & Others, a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal annunciated various...

Hoardings Are Movable Property Under Section 2(3) of DMC Act Subject To the Twin Test: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi International Airport v South Delhi Metropolitan Corporation discussed in detail the provision under Section 2(3) of the DMC...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -