# Ram Bilas ( In Jail) v. The State

- **Citation:** (2021) 11 ILRA 504
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-10-04
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 1983
- **Bench:** Ajit Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-bilas-in-jail-v-the-state-46591
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The Essential commodities
Act,1955 - Section 3/7 -The U.P. Sugar Control
Order, 1962 - U.P. Sugar Dealers Licencing
Order, 1962 - Appeal against conviction -
Rehabilitary
&
Reformative
aspects
in
sentencing - doctrine of proportionality -
Discretion of Court in awarding sentence
cannot be exercised arbitrarily or whimsically -
in operating the sentencing system, law should
adopt corrective machinery or deterrence
based on factual matrix - duty of every court to
award proper sentence having regard to nature
of offence and manner of its commission -
striking
a
balance
between
reform
and
punishment - criminal justice jurisprudence
adopted in the country is not retributive but
reformative and corrective.(Para - 10,13,16)

Accused (fair-price-shop owner) - going to sell away
two bags of sugar on higher rate rather than the
controlled sugar rate - contravened the provisions of
U.P. Sugar Control Order, 1962 and U.P. Sugar
Dealers Licencing Order, 1962 - charged under
provisions of Essential Commodities Act - arrested -
written report lodged by Naib Tehsildar - chargesheet filed against accused - does not propose to
challenge impugned judgement and order on merits -
modification of order of sentence for the period
already undergone.(Para -3)

HELD:-It would not be proper to send the accusedappellant to jail at the fag end of his life and the
accused was on bail since 03.02.1983 and the
accused person has suffered the agony of conviction
for more than 38 years and no criminal antecedents
have been shown to his credit after passing of so
much long period out of jail. Accused be sentenced
with the period already undergone and the amount of
fine be enhanced.(Para - 17,18)

Criminal Appeal partly allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

504 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
long endure and develop under serious threats of
crime and disharmony. It is therefore, necessary
to avoid undue leniency in imposition of
sentence.
Thus,
the
criminal
justice
jurisprudence adopted in the country is not
retributive but reformative and corrective. At the
same time, undue harshness should also be
avoided keeping in view the reformative
approach underlying in our criminal justice
system."

16.

Considering
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case and the substantive
period already undergone by the appellant in this
case and the fact that the appellant is old and
aged persons; and by so far he has realized the
mistake committed by him and is remorseful to
his conduct and feels it necessary to serve with
his polite and cooperative behaviour to the
society which he belongs to and now he wants to
transform himself into a law abiding citizen, I
am of the considered opinion that he should be
given a chance to reform himself and extend his
better contribution to the society to which he
belongs to.

17. After considering the rival submissions
made by learned counsel for the appellant,
considering the facts and circumstance of the
case, considering that the alleged incident which
took place in the year 1983 about 38 years ago
and now appellant is more than 68 years of age,
at this stage, this Court feels that it would not be
proper to send the accused-appellant to jail at the
fag end of his life and the accused was on bail
since 3.1.1989 and the accused person has
suffered the agony of conviction for more than
three decade and no criminal antecedents have
been shown to his credit after passing of so
much long period out of jail, at this stage it does
not appear appropriate to send the accusedappellant to jail. It has been pointed out by
learned counsel for the accused-appellant that
the accused-appellant had remained in jail for
sometime during trial. Considering all these
facts, it would be appropriate and proper that the
accused be sentenced with the period already
undergone and the amount of fine be enhanced.

18.

Consequently,
taking
into
consideration the period already undergone in
prison by the appellant in this case as well as
considering that he has suffered physical and
mental agony of trial and after conviction for a
long period of about 35 years, the conviction is
upheld. Appeal is dismissed and accused is
convicted which the period already undergone
by him in prison during trial and after conviction
and with a fine of Rs.2000/-.

19. Accused-appellant is directed to
deposit the fine of Rs.2,000/- before learned trial
court within a period of three months from the
date of production of a copy of the judgement, in
default of payment of fine as directed above, he
shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period
of fifteen days.

20. Appeal is partly allowed in the above
terms and surety bonds of the sureties are
discharged.

21. Office is directed to transmit the lower
court record along with a copy of this judgment
to the learned court below for information and
necessary compliance as warranted
----------
(2021)11ILR A504
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.10.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT SINGH, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 1983

Ram Bilas ...Appellant ( In Jail)
Versus
The State ...Respondent
11 All. Ram Bilas Vs. The State
505
Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri O.P. Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - The Essential commodities
Act,1955 - Section 3/7 -The U.P. Sugar Control
Order, 1962 - U.P. Sugar Dealers Licencing
Order, 1962 - Appeal against conviction -
Rehabilitary
&
Reformative
aspects
in
sentencing - doctrine of proportionality -
Discretion of Court in awarding sentence
cannot be exercised arbitrarily or whimsically -
in operating the sentencing system, law should
adopt corrective machinery or deterrence
based on factual matrix - duty of every court to
award proper sentence having regard to nature
of offence and manner of its commission -
striking
a
balance
between
reform
and
punishment - criminal justice jurisprudence
adopted in the country is not retributive but
reformative and corrective.(Para - 10,13,16)

Accused (fair-price-shop owner) - going to sell away
two bags of sugar on higher rate rather than the
controlled sugar rate - contravened the provisions of
U.P. Sugar Control Order, 1962 and U.P. Sugar
Dealers Licencing Order, 1962 - charged under
provisions of Essential Commodities Act - arrested -
written report lodged by Naib Tehsildar - chargesheet filed against accused - does not propose to
challenge impugned judgement and order on merits -
modification of order of sentence for the period
already undergone.(Para -3)

HELD:-It would not be proper to send the accusedappellant to jail at the fag end of his life and the
accused was on bail since 03.02.1983 and the
accused person has suffered the agony of conviction
for more than 38 years and no criminal antecedents
have been shown to his credit after passing of so
much long period out of jail. Accused be sentenced
with the period already undergone and the amount of
fine be enhanced.(Para - 17,18)

Criminal Appeal partly allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Mohd. Giasuddin Vs St. of A.P., AIR 1977 SC 1926

2. Sham Sunder Vs Puran, (1990) 4 SCC 731

3. St. of M.P. Vs Najab Khan, (2013) 9 SCC 509

4. Jameel Vs St. of U.P., (2010) 12 SCC 532

5. Guru Basavraj Vs St. of Karnatak, (2012) 8 SCC
734

6. Deo Narain Mandal Vs St. of U.P., (2004) 7 SCC
257

7. Shyam Narain Vs St. (NCT of delhi), (2013) 7 SCC
77

8. Kokaiyabai Yadav Vs St. of Chhattisgarh,(2017) 13
SCC 449

9. Ravada Sasikala Vs St. of A.P. ,AIR 2017 SC 1166

10. Jameel Vs St. of U.P. ,(2010) 12 SCC 532

11. Guru Basavraj Vs St. of Karnatak, (2012) 8 SCC
734

12. Sumer Singh Vs Surajbhan Singh, (2014) 7 SCC
323

13. St. of Punjab Vs Bawa Singh, (2015) 3 SCC 441

14. Raj Bala Vs St. of Haryana, (2016) 1 SCC 463

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri O.P. Gupta, learned counsel
the appellant, learned A.G.A. appearing for
State and perused the record.

2. This criminal appeal has been
preferred against the judgment and order dated
20.01.1983 passed by Special Judge, Ballia in
Criminal Case No. 158 of 1982 (State of U.P.
Vs. Ran Bilas), under Sections 3/7 of Essential
Commodities Act for having breached the U.P.
Sugar Control Order, 1962 and U.P. Sugar
Dealers Licencing Order, 1962, whereby the
appellant was convicted and sentenced to
undergo
eighteen
(18)
months
rigorous
imprisonment.
506 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

3. The prosecution story in brief is that the
present accused Ram Bilas was arrested on
04.09.1980 by Sri Indra Bahadur Singh, Naib
Tehsildar Siar (Rasra), district Ballia while the
present accused was going to sell away two bags
of sugar on higher rate rather than the controlled
sugar rate as he was fair-price-shop owner,
therefore, contravened the provisions of the U.P.
Sugar Control Order, 1962 and U.P. Sugar
Dealers Licencing Order, 1962 and he was
charged under Section 3 punishable under
Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. A
written report was lodged by the Naib Tehsildar
which is Exhibit- Ka-1. The case was
investigated and ultimately charge-sheet was
filed against the present accused Ram Bilas.

4. The trial court after examining the
prosecution witnesses and hearing the accused
persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C., convicted
and sentenced the accused-apellant to undergo
eighteen months rigorous imprisonment under
Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act.

5. Feeling aggrieved from the judgment
and order dated 20.01.1983 passed by Special
Judge, Ballia, this criminal appeal has been
filed.

6. At the very outset, learned counsel for
the appellant, on instructions, stated that he does
not
propose
to
challenge
the
impugned
judgement and order on its merits. He, however,
prayed for modification of the order of the
sentence for the period already undergone by the
appellant.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant further
submits that the incident has happened in the
year 1980 and more than four decades have
passed and since then the appellant is living
peacefully and after conviction the appellant had
not indulged in any other criminal activity.
During trial after conviction the appellant had
served the prison term of more than twenty days.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further
prayed that since the accused person is old, he
should not be sent to jail at the fag-end of his
life. He has further submitted that the appellant
is more than 70 years of age and he is are
suffering from age related ailments. Further
submission is that there is no bread earner in the
family of the appellant. He also submits that on
the question of legality of sentence he is not
pressing this appeal and only pressing on the
quantum of sentence and he has prayed for
taking lenient view considering the age of the
accused and his age related ailments.

8. Sri Narayan Mishra, learned A.G.A. for
the State on the other hand has opposed the
appeal and has submitted that the trial court has
properly awarded sentence to the accused person
and no interference in his sentence is called for,
hence the appeal be dismissed and accused be
directed to suffer the sentence.

9. I have perused the entire material
available on record and the evidence as well as
judgment of the trial court. The learned counsel
for the accused-appellant does not want to press
the appeal on its merit and requests to take a
lenient view of the matter.

10. In Mohd. Giasuddin Vs. State of AP,
AIR 1977 SC 1926, explaining rehabilitary &
reformative aspects in sentencing it has been
observed by the Supreme Court:

"Crime is a pathological aberration.
The criminal can ordinarily be redeemed and
the state has to rehabilitate rather than avenge.
The sub-culture that leads to ante-social
behaviour has to be countered not by undue
cruelty but by reculturization.Therefore, the
focus of interest in penology in the individual
and the goal is salvaging him for the society.
The infliction of harsh and savage punishment is
thus a relic of past and regressive times. The
human today vies sentencing as a process of
11 All. Ram Bilas Vs. The State
507
reshaping a person who has deteriorated into
criminality and the modern community has a
primary stake in the rehabilitation of the
offender as a means of a social defence. Hence a
therapeutic, rather than an 'in terrorem' outlook
should prevail in our criminal courts, since
brutal incarceration of the person merely
produces laceration of his mind. If you are to
punish a man retributively, you must injure him.
If you are to reform him, you must improve him
and, men are not improved by injuries."

11. In Sham Sunder vs Puran, (1990) 4
SCC 731, where the high court reduced the
sentence for the offence under section 304 part I
into undergone, the supreme court opined that
the sentence needs to be enhanced being
inadequate. It was held:

"The court in fixing the punishment for
any
particular
crime
should
take
into
consideration the nature of offence, the
circumstances in which it was committed, the
degree of deliberation shown by the offender.
The
measure
of
punishment
should
be
proportionate to the gravity of offence."

12. In State of MP vs Najab Khan,
(2013) 9 SCC 509, the high court, while
upholding conviction, reduced the sentence of 3
years by already undergone which was only 15
days. The supreme court restored the sentence
awarded by the trial court. Referring the
judgments in Jameel vs State of UP (2010) 12
SCC 532, Guru Basavraj vs State of Karnatak,
(2012) 8 SCC 734, the court observed as
follows:-

"In operating the sentencing system,
law should adopt the corrective machinery or
the deterrence based on factual matrix. The facts
and given circumstances in each case, the
nature of the crime, the manner in which it was
planned
and
committed,
the
motive
for
commission of the crime, the conduct of the
accused, the nature of weapons used and all
other attending circumstances are relevant facts
which
would
enter
into
the
area
of
consideration. We also reiterate that undue
sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would
do more harm to the justice dispensation system
to undermine the public confidence in the
efficacy of law. It is the duty of court to award
proper sentence having regard to the nature of
offence and the manner in which it was executed
or committed. The courts must not only keep in
view the rights of victim of the crime but also the
society at large while considering the imposition
of appropriate punishment."

13. Earlier, "Proper Sentence" was
explained in Deo Narain Mandal Vs. State of
UP (2004) 7 SCC 257 by observing that
Sentence should not be either excessively harsh
or ridiculously low. While determining the
quantum of sentence, the court should bear in
mind the principle of proportionately. Sentence
should be based on facts of a given case. Gravity
of offence, manner of commission of crime, age
and sex of accused should be taken into account.
Discretion of Court in awarding sentence cannot
be exercised arbitrarily or whimsically.

14. In subsequent decisions, the supreme
court has laid emphasis on proportional
sentencing by affirming the doctrine of
proportionality. In Shyam Narain vs State
(NCT of delhi), (2013) 7 SCC 77, it was
pointed out that sentencing for any offence has a
social goal. Sentence is to be imposed with
regard being had to the nature of the offence and
the manner in which the offence has been
committed.
The
fundamental
purpose
of
imposition of sentence is based on the principle
that the accused must realize that the crime
committed by him has not only created a dent in
the life of the victim but also a concavity in the
social fabric. The purpose of just punishment is
that the society may not suffer again by such
crime. The principle of proportionality between
508 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the crime committed and the penalty imposed
are to be kept in mind. The impact on the society
as a whole has to be seen. Similar view has been
expressed in Sumer Singh vs Surajbhan Singh,
(2014) 7 SCC 323 , State of Punjab vs Bawa
Singh, (2015) 3 SCC 441, and Raj Bala vs State
of Haryana, (2016) 1 SCC 463.

15. In Kokaiyabai Yadav vs State of
Chhattisgarh(2017) 13 SCC 449, it has been
observed
that
reforming
criminals
who
understand their wrongdoing, are able to
comprehend their acts,have grown and nartured
into citizens with a desire to live a fruitful life in
the outside world, have the capacity of
humanising the world.

16. In Ravada Sasikala vs. State of A.P.
AIR 2017 SC 1166, the Supreme Court referred
the judgments in Jameel vs State of UP (2010) 12
SCC 532, Guru Basavraj vs State of Karnatak,
(2012) 8 SCC 734, Sumer Singh vs Surajbhan
Singh, (2014) 7 SCC 323 , State of Punjab vs
Bawa Singh, (2015) 3 SCC 441, and Raj Bala vs
State of Haryana, (2016) 1 SCC 463 and has
reiterated that, in operating the sentencing system,
law should adopt corrective machinery or
deterrence based on factual matrix. Facts and given
circumstances in each case, nature of crime,
manner in which it was planned and committed,
motive for commission of crime, conduct of
accused, nature of weapons used and all other
attending circumstances are relevant facts which
would enter into area of consideration. Further,
undue sympathy in sentencing would do more
harm
to
justice
dispensations
and
would
undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of
law. It is the duty of every court to award proper
sentence having regard to nature of offence and
manner of its commission. The supreme court
further said that courts must not only keep in view
the right of victim of crime but also society at
large. While considering imposition of appropriate
punishment, the impact of crime on the society as a
whole and rule of law needs to be balanced. The
judicial trend in the country has been towards
striking a balance between reform and punishment.
The protection of society and stamping out
criminal proclivity must be the object of law which
can be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence
on criminals and wrongdoers. Law, as a tool to
maintain order and peace, should effectively meet
challenges confronting the society, as society could
not long endure and develop under serious threats
of crime and disharmony. It is therefore, necessary
to avoid undue leniency in imposition of sentence.
Thus, the criminal justice jurisprudence adopted in
the country is not retributive but reformative and
corrective. At the same time, undue harshness
should also be avoided keeping in view the
reformative approach underlying in our criminal
justice system.

17. After considering the rival submissions
made by learned counsel for the appellant,
considering the facts and circumstance of the
case, considering that the alleged incident which
took place in the year 1980 about 40 years ago
and now appellant is more than 70 years of age,
at this stage, this Court feels that it would not be
proper to send the accused-appellant to jail at the
fag end of his life and the accused was on bail
since 03.02.1983 and the accused has suffered
the agony of conviction for more than 38 years
and no criminal antecedents have been shown to
his credit after passing of so much long period
out of jail, at this stage it does not appear
appropriate to send the accused-appellant to jail.
It has been pointed out by learned counsel for
the accused-appellant that the accused-appellant
had remained in jail for sometime during trial.
Considering all these facts, it would be
appropriate and proper that the accused be
sentenced with the period already undergone and
the amount of fine be imposed.

18. Considering all the facts and
circumstances of the case, the accused-appellant
is sentenced to the period already undergone by
him in jail during trial and an amount of fine of
11 All. Prakash Vs. State
509
Rs. 2,000/- be imposed instead of sending him to
jail.

19. Accused-appellant is directed to
deposit the fine of Rs. 2,000/- before learned
lower court within three months from the date of
passing of the judgement and in default of
payment of fine accused-appellant shall further
undergo fifteen days imprisonment.

20. Appeal is partly allowed in the above
terms.

21. Copy of this order be transmitted to the
concerned lower court forthwith for compliance
----------
(2021)11ILR A509
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.10.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE AJAI TYAGI, J.

Jail Appeal No. 315 of 2013

Prakash ...Appellant
Versus
State ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
From
Jail,
Shweta
Pandey,
Sri
Sweta
Pandey,A.C.

Counsel for the Respondent:
A.G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 302, 323, 324 & 299 - Appeal from
jail - Culpable homicide, Section 300 - murder ,
Section 304 - culpable homicide not amounting
to murder - testimony of hostile witnesses
cannot be thrown away merely on the ground
of being hostile - can be relied on to the extent,
it supports the prosecution case - person can
tell a lie, but not the circumstances. (Para -
12,18)

Appellant used spade to attack deceased from
reverse-side - sustained two injuries of contusion - no
injury of incised wound - spade was used from
reverse side - no intention to kill the deceased -
knowledge that act was likely to cause death -
deceased died due to excess bleeding of internal
injuries - three witnesses of fact - complainant and
eye-witness of the occurrence (PW1), injured (PW2)
and daughter of the accused (PW3) - turned hostile
.(Para -12, 25)

HELD:-Instant case false under the Exceptions 1 and
4 to Section 300 IPC . Appellant is guilty for
commission of the offence under Section 304 (Part-I)
IPC instead of offence under Section 302 IPC along
with other offences punishable under Sections 323
and 324 IPC . (Para - 27,28,29)

Jail appeal partly allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Koli Lakhmanbhai Chandabhai Vs St. Of Guj.,
(1999) 8 SCC 624

2. Ramesh Harijan Vs St. Of U.P., (2012) 5 SCC 777

3. St. of U.P. Vs Ramesh Prasad Mishra & anr. ,1996
AIR (Supreme Court) 2766

4. St. of U.P. Vs Mohd. Iqram & anr., (2011) 8 SCC 80

5. Tuka Ram & ors. Vs St. of Mah., (2011) 4 SCC 250

6. BN Kavadakar & anr. Vs St. of Karn., 1994 Supp
(1) 304

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi, J.)

1. This appeal has been preferred by the
appellant-Prakash against the judgment and
order dated 16.2.2008, passed by Additional
Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Kanpur Dehat, in
Session Trial No.87 of 2007 (State vs. Prakash)
arising out of Case Crime No.678 of 2006 under
Section 302, 323, 324 IPC, Police StationGhatampur, District-Kanpur Nagar, whereby the
accused was convicted and awarded sentence