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.
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.
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, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & 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.