# Raksha Ram (Jail Appeal ) v. State Of U.P. 840 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES - **Citation:** (2016) 5 ILRA 839 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-04-13 - **Bench:** Arvind Kumar Mishra-I - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/raksha-ram-jail-appeal-v-state-of-u-p-840-indian-law-reports-allahabad-series-43969 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote Authority - U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 - Section 3(1) - Plea of guilty - Sentence of period already undergone - Two years R.I. - Fine of Rs.5000/- - Default one month additional imprisonment - Sentence already suffered - Conviction maintained - Freedom from detention - Negligence on the part of Jail Authorities - Set free forthwith. This is highly alarming and shocking to know that this Jail Appeal though admitted in the year 2012 (16.12.2012) and lower court record was also summoned but the appellant despite his suffering entire detention period for two months R.I. has not been let free by the concerned Jail Authority. In this case, trial took place under U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.(Para 1) Record reflects that this Gangster Act was numbered as 1A/12, State Vs. Raksha Ram and charge under Section 3(1) U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 was preferred on 2.1.2012 and on the same day judgment was pronounced on the plea of guilty raised by the appellant himself. It was specifically pleaded by the appellant that he may be sentenced with period already undergone, meaning thereby it was desire of the appellant that he had no objection against the charge and he wanted that he be released by imposing punishment, which is restricted to the period already undergone by him. But the trial court instead of acting on his plea imposed two years R.I. coupled with fine of Rs.5000/and in case of default one month additional imprisonment was prescribed, meaning thereby that the appellant is in jail since January, 2012 and counting from that period two years R.I. will come to an end on 2nd of January, 2014 and then in the absence of non-payment of fine Rs.5000/-, the appellant shall be further detained for additional one month period, which will expire after 30 days period counting from 3rd January, 2014.(Para 2) Held: Paras (7,8,9,10,11) ## Text 5 All. Raksha Ram (Jail Appeal ) Vs State Of U.P. 839 tender is made to the secured creditor before the date fixed for sale or transfer, the provision places a restriction on the right of the secured creditor to proceed with sale or transfer of the secured asset and further prohibits the secured creditor to take any step for transfer or sale of the secured asset. The language of the Section is very clear that tender to the secured creditor should be made at any time before the date fixed for sale or transfer. 12. In the case in hand, admittedly, the respondent-Bank proceeded to auction the secured asset on 30.03.2016 for a sum of Rs.28.05 lacs in favour of Smt. Urmila Dixit and Smt. Manju Dixit. The bid offered by the auction purchaser was confirmed by the respondent-Bank. From the pleadings in the writ petition itself, it is clear that the application made by the petitioner before the respondent-Bank tendering a sum of Rs.4,65,931/- by means of a bank draft was dated 22.04.2016. 13. Admittedly, the application was made much after the auction took place on 30.03.2016. It is also pertinent to note that petitioner-borrower in his application dated 22.04.2016 has referred the bank draft to be dated 13.04.2016, but photocopy of the same filed as Annexure 8 to the writ petition goes to show that it is dated 30th April, 2016, which in itself sufficient to indicate that though the application is dated 22.04.2016, but it was submitted to the Bank on or after 30.04.2016 when the bank draft was got prepared. 14. Since the tender of the outstanding dues has been made by the petitioner on or after the auction sale of the secured asset held on 30.03.2016, the same does not confirm to the conditions prescribed by subSection (8) of the Act that tender should be made at any time before the date fixed for sale or transfer. 15. In view of the fact that since the petitioner tendered the outstanding dues to the respondent-Bank subsequent to the holding of the auction on 30.03.2016, hence, he is disentitled to claim benefit of Section 13 (8) of the Act and, thus, the relief prayed for in the writ petition is not liable to be granted. 16. Writ petition, accordingly, fails and stands dismissed. 17. However, in the facts and circumstances, we do not make any order as to costs. ---------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 30.05.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA-I, J. Criminal Appeal No.- 267 Of 2012 Raksha Ram (Jail Appeal ) ...Appellant Versus State Of U.P. ...Respondent 840 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Counsel for the Appellant: Jail Appeal Counsel for the Respondent: Govt. Advocate Criminal Appeal- Jail Appeal - Admitted in the year 2012 - Appellant not let free by concerned Jail Authority - U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 - Section 3(1) - Plea of guilty - Sentence of period already undergone - Two years R.I. - Fine of Rs.5000/- - Default one month additional imprisonment - Sentence already suffered - Conviction maintained - Freedom from detention - Negligence on the part of Jail Authorities - Set free forthwith. This is highly alarming and shocking to know that this Jail Appeal though admitted in the year 2012 (16.12.2012) and lower court record was also summoned but the appellant despite his suffering entire detention period for two months R.I. has not been let free by the concerned Jail Authority. In this case, trial took place under U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.(Para 1) Record reflects that this Gangster Act was numbered as 1A/12, State Vs. Raksha Ram and charge under Section 3(1) U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 was preferred on 2.1.2012 and on the same day judgment was pronounced on the plea of guilty raised by the appellant himself. It was specifically pleaded by the appellant that he may be sentenced with period already undergone, meaning thereby it was desire of the appellant that he had no objection against the charge and he wanted that he be released by imposing punishment, which is restricted to the period already undergone by him. But the trial court instead of acting on his plea imposed two years R.I. coupled with fine of Rs.5000/and in case of default one month additional imprisonment was prescribed, meaning thereby that the appellant is in jail since January, 2012 and counting from that period two years R.I. will come to an end on 2nd of January, 2014 and then in the absence of non-payment of fine Rs.5000/-, the appellant shall be further detained for additional one month period, which will expire after 30 days period counting from 3rd January, 2014.(Para 2) Held: Paras (7,8,9,10,11) 1. In this view of the matter, when the appellant has already suffered the entire sentence, let the appellant Raksha Ram be set free forthwith in this case, if he is not wanted in connection with any other case. 2. However, it is desirable to observe that in such cases where the appellant is suffering sentence then it is obligatory upon the concerned Jail Authority to take into account the period of detention imposed on the appellant by the trial court and to refer the matter to the concerned trial court and the concerned Appellate Court, in cases, where the period of detention is either expiring or going to expire shortly. Negligence on the part of Jail Authorities is highly distressing and it should be examined that such instances like the present one never recur. 3. It is directed that the Jailor District Jail, Gonda shall set free appellant Raksha Ram from custody forthwith in Gangster Case No.1A/12, State Vs. Raksha Ram charge under Section 3(1) U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 in case crime no.382 of 2010, if he is not wanted in connection with in any other case. 4. Copy of this order be sent through Fax to the concerned Sessions Judge, District Magistrate Gonda with direction to ensure compliance of the aforesaid order forthwith. This Jail Appeal stands disposed of accordingly Case Law discussed: 5 All. Raksha Ram (Jail Appeal ) Vs State Of U.P. 841 (Delivered by Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, J.) 1. This is highly alarming and shocking to know that this Jail Appeal though admitted in the year 2012 (16.12.2012) and lower court record was also summoned but the appellant despite his suffering entire detention period for two months R.I. has not been let free by the concerned Jail Authority. In this case, trial took place under U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. 2. Obviously, record reflects that this Gangster Act was numbered as 1A/12, State Vs. Raksha Ram and charge under Section 3(1) U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 was preferred on 2.1.2012 and on the same day judgment was pronounced on the plea of guilty raised by the appellant himself. It was specifically pleaded by the appellant that he may be sentenced with period already undergone, meaning thereby it was desire of the appellant that he had no objection against the charge and he wanted that he be released by imposing punishment, which is restricted to the period already undergone by him. But the trial court instead of acting on his plea imposed two years R.I. coupled with fine of Rs.5000/and in case of default one month additional imprisonment was prescribed, meaning thereby that the appellant is in jail since January, 2012 and counting from that period two years R.I. will come to an end on 2nd of January, 2014 and then in the absence of non-payment of fine Rs.5000/-, the appellant shall be further detained for additional one month period, which will expire after 30 days period counting from 3rd January, 2014. 3. Obviously that period too has expired in February, 2014. Then it is obvious that the sentence imposed by the trial court has been suffered by the appellant. One of the grounds of appeal raised in the memo of appeal as ground no.2 also claims that appellant pleaded for specific sentence of period undergone before the trial court. But the trial court did not heed to that plea and imposed two years R.I. coupled with fine. 4. In view of above, it can be conveniently inferred that the accused appellant has no objection against his conviction. He only sought favour of the trial court to impose sentence which is restricted to the period already undergone by him in detention. 5. In this view of the matter, the conviction is maintained at appellate stage and no useful purpose will be served by unnecessarily overhauling the various principles laid down for enhancing or decreasing the sentence as the sentence imposed stood suffered by the appellant and nothing remains to be considered for quantum of sentence at this juncture. 6. It is obvious that the appellant wanted freedom from detention and which freedom has legally accrued to him while he suffered two years detention as per direction of the trial court. Even, in the event of non deposition of fine, the appellant cannot be detained in custody any further as he has suffered additional imprisonment so imposed in case of default in payment of fine. 842 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 7. In this view of the matter, when the appellant has already suffered the entire sentence, let the appellant Raksha Ram be set free forthwith in this case, if he is not wanted in connection with any other case. 8. However, it is desirable to observe that in such cases where the appellant is suffering sentence then it is obligatory upon the concerned Jail Authority to take into account the period of detention imposed on the appellant by the trial court and to refer the matter to the concerned trial court and the concerned Appellate Court, in cases, where the period of detention is either expiring or going to expire shortly. Negligence on the part of Jail Authorities is highly distressing and it should be examined that such instances like the present one never recur. 9. It is directed that the Jailor District Jail, Gonda shall set free appellant Raksha Ram from custody forthwith in Gangster Case No.1A/12, State Vs. Raksha Ram charge under Section 3(1) U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 in case crime no.382 of 2010, if he is not wanted in connection with in any other case. 10. Copy of this order be sent through Fax to the concerned Sessions Judge, District Magistrate Gonda with direction to ensure compliance of the aforesaid order forthwith. 11. This Jail Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. ---------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.05.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PRATYUSH KUMAR, J. Criminal Appeal No.- 734 Of 2016 Dr. Abhay Singh ...Appellant Versus State Of U.P. ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: Sameer Jain Counsel for the Respondents: G.A Criminal Appeal - Dowry death - Sections 304-B, 498-A IPC and Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act - Death of married woman within seven years of marriage - Allegation of demand of ₹15 lakhs for establishment of clinic - Cruelty and harassment soon before death - Death by ante-mortem hanging - Presumption under Section 113-B Evidence Act - Appreciation of prosecution and defence evidence - Credibility of related witnesses - Delay in lodging FIR - Whether demand of dowry connected with marriage - Defence plea of