Allahabad High Court
Sunil vs State Of U.P. on 20 June, 2025
Author: Gautam Chowdhary
Bench: Gautam Chowdhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:99101 Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5131 of 2025 Appellant :- Sunil Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Dharam Singh,Kumari Poonam Rajpoot,Prem Babu Verma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.
1. Heard Mr. Prem Babu Verma, learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record.
2. Present criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 14.5.2025 passed by learned Additional and District Sessions Judge, Anoopshahar – Bulandshahar in Sessions Case No.15 of 2020, State vs. Sunil, arising out of Case Crime No.144 of 2020, under section 323, 325, 304, 452, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station – Dibai, District – Bulandshahar, whereby convicting the appellant under Section 304 part II I.P.C. to undergo five years’ imprisonment along with fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional imprisonment of six months, under Section 325 I.P.C. to undergo two years’ imprisonment along with fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional imprisonment of two months, under Section 323 I.P.C. to undergo six months’ imprisonment along with fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional imprisonment of one month, under Section 452 I.P.C. to undergo two years’ imprisonment along with fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional imprisonment of two months.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that appellant-applicant has been awarded sentence of five years of imprisonment out of which appellant has already been served four years and five months of imprisonment and, therefore, sentence of punishment may be converted into fine. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2004 (49) ACC 539 in the matter of Majister @ Budhpal versus State of U.P. wherein this Court has taken note of the fact that 19 years have elapsed since the date of revision and the accused was on bail during the pendency of revision and therefore, sending the accused to jail after lapse of 17 years would be against humanitarian approach and therefore, liberty was given to avail the benefit of provisions of Section 433(d) Cr.P.C. and the imprisonment was converted into fine.
4. Paragraph 8, relevant part of paragraph-9 and paragraph 10 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted hereinunder:-
“8. Section 433 (d) aforesaid provides for commutation of sentence of simple imprisonment for fine by the appropriate Government. In the leading case of N. Sukumaran Nair v. Food Inspector, Mavelikara, the Supreme Court in such circumstances provided such relief as being permissible to an accused. Para 3 of the judgment is extracted below-
“The offence took place in the year 1984. The appellant has been awarded six months simple imprisonment and has also been ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 1000. Under clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, “the appropriate government” is empowered to commute the sentence of simple imprisonment for fine. We think that this would be an appropriate case for commutation of sentence where almost a decade has gone by. We therefore, direct the appellant to deposit in the Trial Court a sum of Rs. 6,000/- as fine in commutation of the sentence of six months’ simple imprisonment within a period of six weeks from today and intimate to the appropriate government that such fine has been deposited. On deposit of such fine, the State Government may formalize the matter by passing appropriate orders under clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”
5. In the case of Maqbool Ahamed v. State of U.P.(supra), learned Single Judge of this Court relying upon the aforesaid N. Sukumaran Nair v. Food Inspector, Mavelikara, altered the sentence awarded in such a case of food adulteration to the accused to six months simple imprisonment and also directed the State Government that instead of sentence of actual imprisonment he would pay fine which shall be deposited within stipulated period and then he would move an application before the State Government which on receipt of such application shall formalize the matter under the provisions of section 433 (d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
6. In the case of Prem Chand v. State of U.P. (supra) and Roop Chand v. State of U.P. (supra), learned single Judge has also preferred to adopt the same view of the matter to provide benefit of alternative to the accused under Section 433(d) aforesaid for the purposes to avoid his further sufferance in jail, which in the circumstances of the aforesaid case was not justified.”
7. Reduction of sentence, as awarded in such case under the prevention of Food Adulteration Act is permitted as has also been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Haripada Das v. State of W.B. and another reported in 1998 (9) SCC 678.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and after perusing the judgment and order impugned as well as the averments contained in the present appeal, this Court is of the opinion that as the appellant has already served four years and five months of sentence out of awarded sentence i.e. five years of imprisonment, this Court thinks appropriate for commutation of sentence.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the substantive period of sentence i.e. four years and five months have already undergone by the appellant in this case and the fact that the appellant has realized the mistake committed by him and is remorseful of his conduct to the society to which he belongs and now he wants to transform himself, I am of the considered opinion that he should be given a chance to reform himself and he be allowed to give his better contribution to the society to which he belongs.
10. In view of the fact that the accused was awarded maximum sentence of five years; that he has already served four years and five months of sentence, it would be appropriate and proper that the accused be sentenced with the period already undergone and the amount of fine be reduced. Consequently, the sentence is modified to the period already undergone by the appellant in this case, i.e. four years and five months under section 323, 325, 304, 452, 504 and 506 IPC along with fine of Rs. 1000/-
11. The appellant shall be released forthwith unless he is wanted in any other case subject to compliance of Section 437-A Cr.P.C.
12. The amount of fine be deposited by the appellant within a fortnight from the date of release before the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate.
13. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of.
14. Let a copy of this judgment be sent through Registrar (Compliance) of this Court to the concerned Court below for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 20.6.2025
Vandana Y.