# Mohd. Shafi v. State of U.P - **Citation:** (2008) 2 ILRA 490 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2008-04-30 - **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1955 of 2008 - **Bench:** S.S. Kulsherstha, Vijay Kumar Verma - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohd-shafi-v-state-of-u-p-41141 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Indian Penal Code-section 304 B (2)- imposition of fine alongwith punishment of imprisonment-no provision of fine by legislature-held-illegal-stayed-Registrar General to inform the concerned Officer for future action. Held: Para 5 & 6 Although sentence of imprisonment can be extended up to life imprisonment under Section 304-B (2) I.P.C., but no fine can be imposed as the legislature has not prescribed imposition of fine under this Section. 2 All] Mohd. Shafi V. State of U.P. 491 The Registrar General is directed to send a copy of this order within a week through the District Judge concerned to Sri Gopal Singh Chandel, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Fatehpur for his future guidance. ## Text 490 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008 permissible only if it is found to be "shocking to the conscious of the Court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards." In a normal course, if the punishment imposed "is shockingly disproportionate, it would be appropriate to direct the Disciplinary Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed. However, in order to shorten the litigation, it may, in exceptional and rare cases, itself can impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof. 20. In view of the above, in appropriate cases, where the punishment is found to be shocking, the Court in exercise of limited power of judicial review, can also interfere with the quantum of punishment. In the instant case, there is no whisper even of misappropriation or embezzlement of public money or corrupt motive and in fact no loss has been incurred by the State and the charge which stood proved against the petitioner had been only to the extent of spending the amount over and above the sanctioned amount. We are of the considered opinion that the punishment of removal imposed upon the petitioner is disproportionate to the delinquency and thus liable to be quashed. 21. At this stage Shri A.B. Pradhan, learned Standing Counsel has suggested that instead of substituting the order of punishment, the judgment of the Tribunal be set aside and the matter be remanded to the State authorities to reconsider the issue of punishment afresh. 22. In view thereof, we allow the writ petition, quash the order of punishment dated 26.02.1998, set aside the judgement and orders of the Tribunal dated 08.02.2000 and 05.09.2000. The matter is remanded to the respondent no.1 for passing a fresh order in view of the observations made above, which should be less than the punishment of removal from service, within a period of three months from the date of filing a certified copy of this order before him. 23. Needless to say that the petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits. Petition allowed. --------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.04.2008 BEFORE THE HON'BLE S.S. KULSHERSTHA, J. THE HON'BLE VIJAY KUMAR VERMA, J. Criminal Appeal No. 1955 of 2008 Mohd. Shafi ...Appellant Versus State of U.P. ...Opposite party Counsel for the Appellant: Sri. Raghu Bans Sahai Sri. Amrish sahai Counsel for the Opp. Party: A.G.A. Indian Penal Code-section 304 B (2)- imposition of fine alongwith punishment of imprisonment-no provision of fine by legislature-held-illegal-stayed-Registrar General to inform the concerned Officer for future action. Held: Para 5 & 6 Although sentence of imprisonment can be extended up to life imprisonment under Section 304-B (2) I.P.C., but no fine can be imposed as the legislature has not prescribed imposition of fine under this Section. 2 All] Mohd. Shafi V. State of U.P. 491 The Registrar General is directed to send a copy of this order within a week through the District Judge concerned to Sri Gopal Singh Chandel, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Fatehpur for his future guidance. (Delivered by Hon'ble S.S. Kulshrestha, J.) 1. Heard Sri Raghu Bans Sahai, learned counsel for the accused-appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the materials on record. 2. Bail application on behalf of accused-appellant Mohd. Shafi, convicted for the offences under Sections 304- B and 498-A I.P.C. in S.T. No. 664 of 2002 (State of U.P. vs. Kallu @ Nafees and others) vide judgement and order dated 28.02.2008 passed by Sri Gopal Singh Chandel, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Fatehpur has been pressed on the ground that he is the father-in-law of the victim woman and was residing separate from her at the relevant time. General allegations have been attributed against him. 3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused appellant deserves bail. 4. Let the accused-appellant Mohd. Shafi convicted for the offences indicated above be released on bail during the pendency of the appeal on his executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court subject to deposit of fine imposed for the offences under Section 498-A I.P.C. 5. Realisation of the total amount of fine imposed under Section 304-B I.P.C. shall remain stayed, as no fine can be imposed for the offence punishable under Section 304- B I.P.C. It is very unfortunate that the learned Trial Court without going through Section 304-B I.P.C. has imposed fine of Rs.5,000/- on the appellant-accused under this Section, where as no fine is prescribed in subSection (2) of Section 304-B I.P.C., which reads thus:- 304-B. Dowry death.- (1) ............. (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life. 5. Although sentence of imprisonment can be extended up to life imprisonment under Section 304-B (2) I.P.C., but no fine can be imposed as the legislature has not prescribed imposition of fine under this Section. 6. The Registrar General is directed to send a copy of this order within a week through the District Judge concerned to Sri Gopal Singh Chandel, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Fatehpur for his future guidance. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.04.2008 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SABHAJEET YADAV, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.2l692 of 2008 Prem Shankar Mishra ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondents