# Dod Ram Revisionist v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 245
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-04-26
- **Case number:** BEFORE THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED J. Criminal Revision No. 351 of 1996
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dod-ram-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-48498
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

5 All. Dod Ram Vs. State of U.P.
245
revisionist and others for facing the trial
vide impugned order dated 22.12.1993. The
power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a
discretionary and extraordinary power,
which should be sparingly used only in
those cases where the circumstances of the
case so warrant as held by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the cases of Hardeep Singh,
Labhuji Amratji Thakor, Brijendra Singh
and Periyasami (supra).

15. Accordingly, the revision is
allowed.
The
impugned
order
dated
22.12.1993 passed by Sessions Judge,
Etawah summoning the revisionist under
Section 319 CrPC for facing the trial in ST
No.435 of 1990 under Section 307 IPC, is
hereby set aside.
----------
(2022)05ILR A245
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED J.

Criminal Revision No. 351 of 1996

Dod Ram ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Vivek Varma, Sri Durvesh Kumar, Sri
Murli Dhar Mishra, Sri Shekhar Dwivedi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law- Indian Penal Code , 1860-
Section 326- Conviction - Question of
Sentence- Maximum sentence provided to
the revisionist is three years for offence
under Sections 326 I.P.C- The impugned
judgment do not suffer from any illegality,
perversity or jurisdictional error which
may call for any interference by this Court,
hence the conviction and sentence of the
revisionists is hereby upheld. But taking in
account of the fact that revisionist has
already undergone sufficient period in jail
as under trial and after conviction by the
lower appellate court, his rest of the
sentence
be
converted
into
a
fine-
Revisionist is directed to pay and deposit
fine of Rs. 50,000/- in the court of C.J.M.
concerned out of which Rs. 40,000/- shall
be paid to the informant-Tara Chand P.W.
1 and 10,000/- shall go to the State.

Where the accused has undergone a substantial
part of the sentence, the remaining part of the
sentence can be converted into fine. ( Para 6,7)

Criminal Appeal partly allowed. (E-3)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Heard Sri Shekhar Dwivedi,
Advocate holding brief of Sri Durvesh
Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist
and Sri Vinod Kant, learned Additional
Advocate General assisted by Sri Vinay
Prakash Shahu, learned counsel for the
opposite party.

2. The present criminal revision has
been preferred against the judgment and
order dated 26.02.1996 passed by Ist
Additional Sessions Judge Bareilly in
Criminal Appeal No. 202 of 1995: Dod
Ram Vs. State of U.P.,confirming the order
dated 17.08.1995 passed by the Judicial
Magistrate Ist, Bareilly in Criminal Case
No. 288/94 State Vs. Dod Ram and
Parmeshwari (Parmeshwari having died
case against him had abated) arising out of
Crime No. 173/89, under Section 326
I.P.C.,
Police
Station
Cantt,
District
Bareilly convicting and sentencing the
revisionist under Section 326 I.P.C. and
sentence for 3 years rigorous imprisonment
with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of
payment
of
fine
further
rigorous
246 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
imprisonment for six months has been
imposed.

3. With the consent of learned counsel
for the parties, the present revision is being
decided on the question of sentence only.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist
submits that maximum sentence provided
to the revisionist is three years for offence
under Sections 326 I.P.C. The rest of the
sentence of the revisionist be converted
into fine and the same shall not be treated
as enhancement of the sentence. Learned
counsel for the revisionist further submits
that the revisionist has undergone a
substantial period of punishment and now
the revisionist is on parole.

5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer
for quashing of the impugned order and has
submitted that the lower appellate court has
rightly passed the impugned judgment and
order after considering the evidence before
it, hence no interference is called for by this
Court and the revision is liable to be
dismissed.

6. I have perused the impugned
judgment and orders as well as record and
in my opinion the same do not suffer from
any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional
error which may call for any interference
by this Court, hence the conviction and
sentence of the revisionists is hereby
upheld. But taking in account of the fact
that revisionist has already undergone
sufficient period in jail as under trial and
after conviction by the lower appellate
court, his rest of the sentence be converted
into a fine.

7. Accordingly, revisionist is directed
to pay and deposit fine of Rs. 50,000/- in
the court of C.J.M. concerned out of which
Rs. 40,000/- shall be paid to the informantTara Chand P.W. 1 and 10,000/- shall go to
the State. If the revisionist deposits the
aforesaid amount of fine, he shall be
released forthwith, if not already released
and further if not wanted in any other case.

8. In default of the fine as directed
above, the revisionist shall serve out the
sentence as awarded by the courts below.

9. In view of the above, the revision is
partly allowed.

10. Office is directed to send a
certified copy of this order to C.J.M.,
concerned for its compliance.

11. Learned counsel for the revisionist
submits
that
there
is
Second
Bail
Application No. 5 of 2021 filed on behalf
of the revisionist-Dod Ram is pending,
which may be dismissed as not pressed.

12. Accordingly, the aforesaid second
bail application is dismissed as not pressed.
----------
(2022)05ILR A246
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Government (Criminal) Revision No. 486 of 2002

State of U.P. ...Revisionist
Versus
Swami Sachchidanand Har Sakchi & Ors.
 ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Govt. Advocate

Counsel for the Opposite Parties: