- (1.) J. C. Mishra, J. List revised. None appears for the revisionist and opposite party No. 2. Heard Learned Additional Government Advocate.
(2.) THE complaint case is that the ac cused disclosed to the complainant and his wife that the plot intended to be sold was free from all debts and encumbrances and on his assurance the complainant's wife got the sale-deed executed with respect to plot No. 581 and parted with a sum of Rs. 7000/ -. It was alleged that accused Budh Sen thereby committed an offence punish able under Section 420 I. P. C. THE learned Magistrate convicted the accused under Section 420 I. P. C. and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one month (sic year) and to pay fine of Rs. 4000/ -. Felt aggrieved 'he accused preferred appeal which was dismissed by the IInd Addition al Sessions Judge, Aligarh on 20th July, 1984. The accused challenged the aforesaid orders by filing this revision. In the grounds of revision it is mentioned that on the allegations made in the complaint no offence under Section 420 I. P. C is made out. I do not find force in this contention. The case is rally covered by illustration (2) to Section 415 I. P. C. It was the duty of the vendor to have dis closed previous mortgage to the vendee.
(3.) THE offence was committed about 20 years before. This revision is pending since 1984. Considering the circumstances of the case I am of the view that it will not be proper to send the accused to jail after such a long period. THE substantive sen tence of rigorous imprisonment, there fore, deserves to be set aside. The revision is partly allowed. The sentence awarded to the revisionist is modified. Instead of rigorous imprison ment for one year and to fine of Rs. 4000/-the revisionist is sentenced to sentence undergone, fine of Rs. 7000/- which shall be paid within 3 months. In default, the revisionist shall undergo rigorous im prisonment for one year. Revision partly allowed. .;