- (1.) THIS Jail Appeal has been preferred against the order dated 1.10.2004 passed in Crime No. 173/2000, under Section 2/3 U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), Police Station Hardoi, District Hardoi.
(2.) IT transpires from the record that the appellant along with some other persons was tried for the offence under Section 2/3 of the Act. During pendency of the case, Appellant Ram Sewak moved an application before the trial court that he wants to confess his guilt and he be punished for the period already undergone by him in the said offence. He confessed his guilt on 1.10.2004 and on the basis of his confession, by the impugned order, he was held punished under Section 3 of the Act, and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and was also imposed fine of Rs. 5000/- in default of payment of fine he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of seven days. The only argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant has already served out his sentence and he is not being released by the jail authorities. After filing of this appeal on 3.8.2010 it was brought to the notice of the Court that the appellant has already served out the sentence imposed upon him and he is still in jail, therefore, a report from the Superintendent of District Jail Hardoi was called for to explain as to why this appeal has been sent from jail.
(3.) SUPERINTENDENT, District Jail Hardoi in his report dated 19.11.2010 has reported that appellant Ram Sewak is undergoing sentence in the following other cases also. (1) Case Crime No. 163/2000, S.T. No. 315/2000, under Sections 395, 397 IPC, Police Station Tadiyawan, District Hardoi, in which he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 10 years vide judgment dated 13.1.2004. (prior to the date of impugned judgment) (2) Case Crime No. 353/2002, S.T. No. 831/2003, under Sections 148, 302/149, 307/149 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, he is undergoing life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default payment of fine he has to undergo two years imprisonment. He was convicted by judgment dated 15.9.2004. (prior to the date of impugned judgment) It was further reported that in view of the provisions of para 36(2) of Jail Manual other sentence shall run along with the sentence of imprisonment for life and the appellant has completed the substantive sentence imposed on him but he has to undergo imprisonment which is imposed on him in default of payment of fine which is only for seven days. I have gone through the record. A perusal of the record shows that the appellant was convicted with two years R.I. and there is no dispute to the fact that he has already completed his sentence but in other murder case he was already undergoing imprisonment for life. In this case he has also been imposed fine of Rs. 5000/-.;