# Sukhram -Revisionist (In Jail) v. The State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2007) 2 ILRA 370
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2007-02-07
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No.32 of 2007
- **Bench:** Vinod Prasad
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sukhram-revisionist-in-jail-v-the-state-of-u-p-40917
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Criminal Revision-offence under Section
279, 304A, 427 I.P.C.-punishment of one
month R. I -the accused/revisionist
already undergone punishment of 15
days-No
useful
purpose
served-if
revision dismissed and directed to serve
the remaining period-remaining period
of one month R. I altered in to fine of
Rs.15000/- out of which 12,000/- be
paid to bereaved family-direction issued
accordingly.

## Text

370 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
counsel for the applicants and has stated
that even the counsel did not appear
despite time was allowed by the court and
the case was taken up on a number of
occasions on the same day at short
intervals. An application with a prayer not
to give effect to the order issuing non
bailable warrant was rejected as no one
was present to press the application.
Counter affidavit has been filed by Sub
Inspector but no counter affidavit is on
record pursuant to the order passed by this
Court on 11.8.2006 directing the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Bulandsahar to
file counter affidavit. Counter affidavit
filed by Sub Inspector mentioned that the
proceeding under Section 82/83 has been
initiated against the applicants and also
denied the averments of the affidavit filed
in support of the transfer application.

6. After hearing the counsel for the
respective parties at length and taking into
consideration
the
entire
facts
and
circumstances and also the series of crime
by both the sides as a result of long
standing enmity, I am of the considered
view that the trial should be held some
where else to ensure that it is completed
expeditiously. The various orders passed
by this Court are sufficient to come to a
conclusion that if the trial is permitted to
continue at Bulandshahar, the danger of
repetition of the offences on either side
will continue to loom large.

7. In the circumstances, it is
appropriate in the interest of justice that
the Session Trial No.1144 of 2001 be
transferred to Ghaziabad. The District
Judge, Bulandshahar is directed to remit
the record of session Trial No. 1144 of
2001- State Vs. Kali Charan and others to
Ghaziabad. The District Judge, Ghaziabad
shall ensure that the Session Trial is
posted to a court of competent jurisdiction
who shall complete the trial expeditiously.

8. With the aforesaid directions, this
transfer application stands allowed.
---------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.02.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINOD PRASAD, J.

Criminal Revision No.32 of 2007

Sukhram ...Accused-Revisionist
(In Jail)
Versus
The State of U.P.

...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Ravi Shanker Tripathi
Sri A.P. Tewari

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

Criminal Revision-offence under Section
279, 304A, 427 I.P.C.-punishment of one
month R. I -the accused/revisionist
already undergone punishment of 15
days-No
useful
purpose
served-if
revision dismissed and directed to serve
the remaining period-remaining period
of one month R. I altered in to fine of
Rs.15000/- out of which 12,000/- be
paid to bereaved family-direction issued
accordingly.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vinod Prasad. J.)

The revisionist Sukhram was tried by
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
court no.7, Ghaziabad in Case No.251
of2004, State vs.Sukhram for offences
under Sections 279, 304A, 427 I.P.C.,
Police Station, Kavi Nagar, District
Ghaziabad arising out of Crime No. 728
2 All] Sukhram V. The State of U.P.
371
of 2000. Finding the revisionist guilty
under Sections 279, 304A, 427 I.P.C. the
trial court convicted him under the
aforesaid sections and sentenced him for
rigorous imprisonment of one month
under Section 279 I.P.C, four months
rigorous imprisonment for each of the
offences under Section 304 A and 427
I.P.C vide its order dated 22.6.2004. The
trial court further ordered that all the
sentences
shall
run
concurrently.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction
and sentences the revisionist preferred
Criminal Appeal No.55 of 2004, Sukhram
vs. State, which appeal was heard and
decided by Additional Sessions Judge,
Court no.12, Ghaziabad who was please
to dismiss the aforesaid appeal on
12.12.2006 in toto, hence this revision
challenging both the aforesaid orders of
conviction
and
sentences
and
the
affirmation thereof.

The synopsized allegations against
the revisionist are that Sunil Kumar
Agrawal (deceased) who was the brother
of Anil Kumar Agrawal, informant, was
returning on his Moped to his house on
17.12.2000 at 6.00 P.M. when at Rajnagar
Fly Over Crossin& Roadways Bus No.
U.P.-24-1886 dashed against his Moped
from behind as result of which the
deceased Sunil Kumar Agrawal was
thrown on the ground and the said
Roadways Bus crushed him to death.
Neeraj Kumar, a scooter rider chased the
said bus on which the driver of the bus
ran away from the spot after leaving the
bus, The F.I.R. of the said incident was
lodged by Anil Kumar Agrawal on
17.12.2000 at 6.45 P.M. at Police Station
Kavi Nagar, District Ghaziabad, which
was registered as Crime No. 728 of 2000
under
the
aforesaid
sections.
The
investigation revealed that the present
revisionist was the accused of the
aforesaid offences and therefore, the
charge sheet was laid against him.

During
the
trial
Anil
Kumar
Agrawal, informant was examined as
P.W. l, Y.P. Singhal P.W. 2, Sub
Inspector J.K. Gangwar P.W.3, Neeraj
Garg
P.W.4,
Gagan
Nanda
P.W.5,
Pradeep Suxana P.W.6 in support of the
prosecution version. The accused did not
examine anybody in his defense. From the
evidence on record and finding the case of
the prosecution to have been proved to the
hilt, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
court no.7, Ghaziabad convicted the
revisionist for offences under Section 279,
304A, 427 I.P.C and sentences him for
one month rigorous imprisonment on the
first count and four month rigorous
imprisonment each on the rest of the two
counts vide his impugned order dated
22.6.04. As has been stated above the
appeal of the accused was also dismissed
by the Lower Appellate Court.

I have heard Sri A.P, Tiwari, learned
counsel for the revisionist as well as
learned A.G.A. in support and opposition
of this revision.

Sri A.P. Tiwari learned counsel for
the revisionist fairly conceded that so far
as findings of fact recorded in this
revision are concerned both the courts
below did not commit any error in
recording the said findings of fact.
Consequently, learned counsel for the
revisionist did not lay much emphasis on
the conviction part of the impugned
judgments
and
conceded
that
the
revisionist has been rightly convicted.
However, he addressed the court on the
sentence part of the revisionist an
contended that six years has lapsed since
372 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
the incident had taken place and to send
the revisionist to jail at this belated stage
for a maximum period of four months
rigorous imprisonment will not serve any
useful
purpose.
He
submitted
that
sentencing the revisionist to jail is not
going to further cause of justice. Learned
counsel for the revisionist contended that
after the appeal of the revisionist was
dismissed on 12.12.2006, the revisionist
has already remain in jail for more than a
month and therefore his substantive
sentence of imprisonment be altered into
fine.

Learned A. G .A. on the other hand
contended that the sentence is too meager
and therefore it should not be altered.

I have considered the submission of
both the rival sides. As of now after the
appeal of the revisionist was dismissed on
12.12.2006, he is in jail till date.
Therefore one and a half months he has
already served out the sentence. In my
view no useful will be served in
dismissing the revision in toto and allow
the revisionist to serve the rest of the
period of his imprisonment. From the
judgment of the trial court I find that the
trial court even though has sentenced the
revisionist for a smaller period of four
month but it has not cared to anoint the
done by the revisionist to the bereaved
family. In matter of such nature I am of
the opinion that the accused must be
directed to compensate the deceased
family adequately. During the e course of
the argument learned counsel for the
revisionist has informed the Court that
under Motor Vehicles Accident Claim six
lac rupees has been paid to the family of
the deceased already. I am of the view
that under such facts the revision should
allow and, the substantive imprisonment
of jail of rest of the period of two and a
half month should be altered by imposing
a further fine of Rs.15000/- on the
revisionist out of which Rs.12000/- shall
be given to the family members of the
deceased.

In view of what I have stated above
this revision is allowed in part. While the
conviction of the revisionist is maintained
on the aforesaid counts, his conviction of
substantive imprisonment is altered to pay
a fine of Rs.15000/- in all under all the
three heads. The revisionist is granted one
month from to day to pay the said fine.
After the fine is deposited by the
revisionist the trial court concerned is
directed
to
pay
Rs.12000-
as
compensation to the entitled family
member of the deceased. For the purpose
of realizing the fine the revisionist is
directed to be released from jail on his
furnishing a personal bond of Rs.20000/-
and two sureties each in the like amount
to the satisfaction of the trial court
concerned. In the event of failure by the
revisionist to deposit the amount of fine,
which has been awarded on him by this
judgment, within the specified time
allowed by this judgment the trial court is
directed to issue a warrant of arrest
against him, get him arrested and send
him to jail to serve out the remaining part
of sentence imposed by it.

With the aforesaid direction this
revision is allowed in part.
Revision allowed
---------
2 All] The Commissioner Sales Tax V. S/S R.N.P.Narain, Farrukhabad
373
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.03.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJES KUMAR, J.

Sales Tax Revision N0.1704 Of 1993.
And
Sales Tax Revision N0.1705 Of 1993.

The
Commissioner,
Sales
Tax,
U.P.,
Lucknow

 ...Applicant
Versus
S/S
Ram
Narain
Pratap
Narain,
Farrukhabad

...Opposite party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri B.R. Tripathi
Sri C.B. Yadav
Sri B.K. Pandey
S.C.

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal
Sri Piyush Agrawal
Sri Shubham Agrawal

U.P. Trade Tax Act-Section 21 (2)-"Oil of
all Kinds"-whether Nagar Motha Oil,
Pipermint Oil and Raunsa oil full under
unclassified item?-held-'Yes' where the
commodity not classified should be
taxed as unclassified.

Held: Para 8

There is no dispute that Nagar Motha Oil,
Peppermint Oil and Raunsa Oil are the
oils and they are not been classified
elsewhere under any of the Notification.
The entry "Oil of all kinds" is a generic
entry and includes all kinds of oil. Thus,
there appears to be no reason why Nagar
Motha Oil, Peppermint Oil and Raunsa Oil
are not covered under the entry "Oil of
all kinds". It is settled principle of law
that effort should be to classify a
commodity under the entry and if it is
not possible to classify under any of the
entry then only the commodity should be
taxed as an unclassified goods. In the
case of Collector of Central Excise,
Shillong Versus Wood Craft Products Ltd.
reported in 1995 (3) SCC page 454, Apex
Court held that the residuary can be
resorted to only when even a liberal
construction of the specific headings is
not capable of covering the goods in
question. Thus, in the absence of any
specific entry relating to the aforesaid
three items, being essential oils has been
rightly covered under the generic entry
"Oil of all kinds".
Case law discussed:
1987 UPTC-504
1999 UPTC-45
1995 (3) SCC-454

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.)

1. At the instance of the Revenue,
following two questions have been raised
in the present revisions.

"1.
Whether
the
Sales
Tax
Tribunal was legally justified to hold
that Nagar Motha Oil, Pipermint Oil
and Raunsa Oil fall under the entry of
"Oil of all kinds" despite the fact that
the aforesaid commodities fall under
the category of an unclassified item and
are liable for tax accordingly?

2. Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Trade
Tax Tribunal was legally justified to
hold that the proceedings under section
21 are barred by limitation in view of
the decision of Hon'ble High Court in
the case of CST Versus Bhagwan
Finance Corporation 1988-27 STL (34)
and decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Additional Commissioner
Versus Jyoti Traders 1999 UPTC 45?".

2. For the assessment year 1976-77
under section 21 (2) of the U.P. Trade Tax