# Ram Das (on Interim Bail) v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2008) 2 ILRA 435
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2008-03-03
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 550 of 2008
- **Bench:** S.S. Kulshrestha, Vijay Kumar Verma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-das-on-interim-bail-v-state-of-u-p-41076
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Indian Penal Code-Section 498-A read
with 3⁄4 Dowry Prohibition Act-conviction
of 6 month R.I. with fine of Rs.1000/-
held-improper-in view of amendment- by
amending Act 43 of 86-under Section 3the quantum of fine must not be less
than 15000/- on the amount of Dowrywhichever
more-without
recording
special reason-sentence of fine can not
be less than 15000/- for guidancenecessary direction issued.

Held: Para 6

It is worthwhile to mention that the
learned Trial Court ignoring mandatory
provisions
of
Section
3
of
Dowry
Prohibition Act (in short, 'the Act') has
sentenced the appellant-accused Ram
Das
as
well
as
co-accused Chetan
(husband of the deceased) to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for six months
and to pay a fine of rupees one thousand
each under Section 3/4 of the Act,
whereas after amendment of the Act
vide Amending Act 43 of 1986, minimum
imprisonment under Section 3 of the Act
is not less than five years with fine,
which shall not be less than fifteen
thousand rupees or the amount of the
value of such dowry, whichever is more.
Although, in view of the Proviso to
Section 3 of the Act, the Court may, for
adequate and special reasons to be
recorded
in
the
judgement,
impose
sentence of imprisonment for a term of
less than five years, but no discretion
has been given to the Court to impose
fine less than fifteen thousand rupees.
The learned Trial Judge has not recorded
any adequate and special reason to
impose lesser sentence under section 3
of the Act, although both the accused
have been convicted under this Section
also. As such, the sentence imposed by
the learned Trial Judge under section 3
of the Act appears to be wholly illegal, as
sentence
of
fine
less
than
fifteen
thousand rupees cannot be imposed, if
the accused is convicted under Section 3
of the Act and if adequate and special
reasons are available in any case then
recording
such
reasons
in
the
judgement, although the Court may
impose sentence of imprisonment for a
term of less than five years, but in that
case also, sentence of fine less than
fifteen
thousand
rupees
cannot
be
imposed, as no discretion is left to the
Court by Legislature to .impose a fine
less than fifteen thousand rupees under
Section 3 of the Act. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Kirpal
Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2000(40) ACC
136 has held that where minimum
sentence is prescribed in the statute,
then neither the Trial Court nor the High
Court can bypass the minimum limit
prescribed by law. Therefore, in instant
case also, sentence of fine less than
fifteen thousand rupees under Section 3
of the Act could not be imposed.
Case law discussed:
2000 (40) ACC-136

## Text

2 All] Ram Das V. State of U.P.
435
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.03.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.S. KULSHRESTHA, J.
THE HON'BLE VIJAY KUMAR VERMA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 550 of 2008

Ram Das ...Appellant (on Interim Bail)
Versus
State of U.P.

...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Rajeev Sisodia
Sri Atul Sisodia

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

Indian Penal Code-Section 498-A read
with 3⁄4 Dowry Prohibition Act-conviction
of 6 month R.I. with fine of Rs.1000/-
held-improper-in view of amendment- by
amending Act 43 of 86-under Section 3the quantum of fine must not be less
than 15000/- on the amount of Dowrywhichever
more-without
recording
special reason-sentence of fine can not
be less than 15000/- for guidancenecessary direction issued.

Held: Para 6

It is worthwhile to mention that the
learned Trial Court ignoring mandatory
provisions
of
Section
3
of
Dowry
Prohibition Act (in short, 'the Act') has
sentenced the appellant-accused Ram
Das
as
well
as
co-accused Chetan
(husband of the deceased) to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for six months
and to pay a fine of rupees one thousand
each under Section 3/4 of the Act,
whereas after amendment of the Act
vide Amending Act 43 of 1986, minimum
imprisonment under Section 3 of the Act
is not less than five years with fine,
which shall not be less than fifteen
thousand rupees or the amount of the
value of such dowry, whichever is more.
Although, in view of the Proviso to
Section 3 of the Act, the Court may, for
adequate and special reasons to be
recorded
in
the
judgement,
impose
sentence of imprisonment for a term of
less than five years, but no discretion
has been given to the Court to impose
fine less than fifteen thousand rupees.
The learned Trial Judge has not recorded
any adequate and special reason to
impose lesser sentence under section 3
of the Act, although both the accused
have been convicted under this Section
also. As such, the sentence imposed by
the learned Trial Judge under section 3
of the Act appears to be wholly illegal, as
sentence
of
fine
less
than
fifteen
thousand rupees cannot be imposed, if
the accused is convicted under Section 3
of the Act and if adequate and special
reasons are available in any case then
recording
such
reasons
in
the
judgement, although the Court may
impose sentence of imprisonment for a
term of less than five years, but in that
case also, sentence of fine less than
fifteen
thousand
rupees
cannot
be
imposed, as no discretion is left to the
Court by Legislature to .impose a fine
less than fifteen thousand rupees under
Section 3 of the Act. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Kirpal
Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2000(40) ACC
136 has held that where minimum
sentence is prescribed in the statute,
then neither the Trial Court nor the High
Court can bypass the minimum limit
prescribed by law. Therefore, in instant
case also, sentence of fine less than
fifteen thousand rupees under Section 3
of the Act could not be imposed.
Case law discussed:
2000 (40) ACC-136

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.S. Kulshrestha, J.)

1. Heard Sri Rajeev Sisodia, learned
counsel for the appellant and learned
A.G.A. for the State and also perused the
material on record.
436 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
2. The bail application on behalf of
the accused-appellant Ram Das convicted
for the offence under Section 498-A
I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act in
S.T. No.5 of 2007 vide judgement dated
08.01.2008 passed by Sri Shiv Sharma,
the then Additional Sessions judge, Court
No.2, Bijnor has been pressed on the
ground that he was awarded two years
rigorous imprisonment under Section 498A I.P.C and six months' imprisonment
under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.
He was also on interim bail.

3. Having regard to all the facts and
circumstances, without expressing any
opinion on merit of the case, the accusedappellant may be admitted to bail.

4. Let the appellant Ram Das s/o Sri
Thani Singh be released on bail for the
offences indicated above during the
pendency of the appeal on his executing a
personal bond and furnishing two sureties
each in the like amount to the satisfaction
of the Trial Court concerned and subject
to the deposit 50% of fine amount
awarded by the trial court.

5. On depositing 50% amount of
fine by the appellant, realization of
remaining amount of fine shall remain
stayed.

6. It is worthwhile to mention that
the
learned
Trial
Court
ignoring
mandatory provisions of Section 3 of
Dowry Prohibition Act (in short, 'the Act')
has sentenced the appellant-accused Ram
Das as well as co-accused Chetan
(husband of the deceased) to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for six months and
to pay a fine of rupees one thousand each
under Section 3/4 of the Act, whereas
after
amendment
of
the
Act
vide
Amending Act 43 of 1986, minimum
imprisonment under Section 3 of the Act
is not less than five years with fine, which
shall not be less than fifteen thousand
rupees or the amount of the value of such
dowry, whichever is more. Although, in
view of the Proviso to Section 3 of the
Act, the Court may, for adequate and
special reasons to be recorded in the
judgement,
impose
sentence
of
imprisonment for a term of less than five
years, but no discretion has been given to
the Court to impose fine less than fifteen
thousand rupees. The learned Trial Judge
has not recorded any adequate and special
reason to impose lesser sentence under
section 3 of the Act, although both the
accused have been convicted under this
Section also. As such, the sentence
imposed by the learned Trial Judge under
section 3 of the Act appears to be wholly
illegal, as sentence of fine less than fifteen
thousand rupees cannot be imposed, if the
accused is convicted under Section 3 of
the Act and if adequate and special
reasons are available in any case then
recording such reasons in the judgement,
although the Court may impose sentence
of imprisonment for a term of less than
five years, but in that case also, sentence
of fine less than fifteen thousand rupees
cannot be imposed, as no discretion is left
to the Court by Legislature to .impose a
fine less than fifteen thousand rupees
under Section 3 of the Act. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Kirpal
Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2000(40)
ACC 136 has held that where minimum
sentence is prescribed in the statute, then
neither the Trial Court nor the High Court
can bypass the minimum limit prescribed
by law. Therefore, in instant case also,
sentence of fine less than fifteen thousand
rupees under Section 3 of the Act could
not be imposed.
2 All] Tej Pal Kaushik V. State of U.P. and another
437
7. The Registrar General is directed
to send a copy of this order to Sri Shiv
Sharma, the then Additional Sessions
Judge, Court No.2, Bijnor for his future
guidance.
 Application disposed of.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.04.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29235 of 2007

Tej Pal Kaushik

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shashi Nandan
Sri P.S. Chauhan

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri R.B. Pradhan
Sri Arvind Kumar
S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Art.
226Regularisation-petitioner
working
as
Principal on Ad-hoc basis-for the last 17
years-requisite qualification for principal
of
Government
industrial
Training
Institute is B.Tech (Electronic) while
petitioner
is
M.
Tech.
From
IIT
Kharagpur-by
impugned
orderregularisation refused on the basis of
Uma
Devi
case-nothing
whether
regarding
lack
of
qualification-or
concealment
of
facts
on
initial
appointment-No reason disclosed for
ignoring the expert opinion in favour of
petitioner-order
not
sustainabledirection issued for fresh consideration.

Held: Para 19 & 20

Thus, in view of the above, we are of the
considered opinion that the respondent
authorities while passing the impugned
order did not record any reason for not
agreeing with expert opinions and in
case of doubt why they failed to refer the
matter to Expert Committee for its
opinion and under what circumstances
experience possessed by the petitioner
for about 18 years has been completely
ignored.

In the facts and circumstances of the
case, it is warranted that the matter be
remanded for re-examination. As the
petitioner is out of service, the case
requires
to
be
decided
within
a
stipulated period.
Case law discussed:
1965 SC 491, AIR 1986 SC 1448, AIR 1975 SC
192, (1979) 2 SCC 339, AIR 1980 SC 2141,
AIR 1990 SC 434, AIR 1991 SC 2272, AIR
1992 SC 917, AIR 1994 SC 579, (1997) 8 SCC
31, (2000) 3 SCC 59, (2001) 5 SCC 486,
(2006) 4 SCC 1

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
for quashing the impugned order dated
01st June, 2007 by which the petitioner
has been denied regularisation of services
on the ground that at the initial stage of
appointment on ad-hoc basis he did not
possess the requisite qualification.

2. The facts and circumstances
giving rise to this petition are that
petitioner was appointed as Principal on
ad-hoc basis in Government Industrial
Training Institute vide order dated 05-101988 for a period of one year or till the
regular selections are made by the Public
Service
Commission
whichever
was
earlier.

3. As the vacancies could not be
filled up by the Commission on regular
basis, period of employment had been
extended from time to time by passing