- (1.) B. K. Shanna, J. This is a revision against the judgment and order dated 14-5-1984 passed by Sri Radhakant the then XIIIth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur in Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 1984, whereby he dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and order dated 24-2-1984 passed by Sri S. K. Tripathi, the then Judicial Magistrate Kanpur Dehat, convicting the accused revisionist Dannoo of the offence under Sections 323 and 452, I. P. C. and sentenc ing him to undergo R. I. for a period of 6 months for the offence under Section 323, I. P. C. and R. I. for a period of one year for the offence under Section 452, I. P. C. and convicting the accused-revisionist Man-noo of the offences under Sections 324 and 452, I. P. C. and sentencing him to un dergo R. I. for a period of one year for the offence under Section 324, I. P. C. and to undergo R. I. for a period of one year for the offence under Section 452, I. P. C. and directing that both the sentences in the case of each accused-revisionist shall run concurrently.
(2.) OUT of the accused-revisionist, ac cused-revisionist No. 1 Dannoo had died during the pendency of this revision and consequently this revision has abated to his extent. Heard learned counsel for Man-noo accused-revisionist No. 2 and the learned A. G. A. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mannoo accused- revisionist has not challenged the conviction of this ac cused- revisionist for the offences under Sections 324 and 452, I. P. C. He has made submissions only on the question of sen tence. He has pointed out that the occur rence related to the year 1974 and the accused-revisionist was coming down on bail from the month of June, 1984 up till now. He has further pointed out from the record of this revision that this accused-revisionist had surrendered in Court on 31-5-1984 in pursuance of the judgment and order dated 14-5-1984 of the Addi tional Sessions Judge and that this Court had passed the bail order in his favour only on 13-6-1984 and that the matter having related to Kanpur Dehat, it would have taken a few more days for obtaining the actual release of the accused-revisionist from jail after furnishing bonds before the Magistrate concerned there. In short, the argument is that he has already suffered R. I. in jail for a period of atleast a fortnight. He has furtner argued that send ing the accused-revisionist back to jail now after such a long gap of time would do more harm than good. He has prayed that the sentence of imprisonment in the case of each offence may be reduced to the period already undergone. This prayer may be accepted to the extent that in lieu of the reduction in the sentence of im prisonment, suitable amount of fine may be imposed and time may be granted to pay the same.
(3.) IN my view, a sum of Rs. 1000/- may be the proper amount of fine. IN default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a period of 10 days may serve the ends of justice. The revision is consequently partly allowed. The conviction of the accused-revisionist Mannoo for the offences under Ss. 324 & 452, I. P. C. as awarded by the trial Court and as confirmed by the lower ap pellate Court is maintained. However for each offence, the sentence of imprison ment is reduced from one year R. I to the imprisonment for the period already un dergone by him as a convict and in lieu thereof, the sentence of fine of Rs. 1000/-is imposed. In default of payment of each fine, the accused- revisionist Mannoo shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 10 days. He is allowed 1 month time to pay the fine in the Court of the Magistrate concerned. In default of payment of fine within the time permitted, the accused-revisionisi Mannoo shall be got arrested by the Magistrate and consigned to the District Jail concerned to serve out the sentence.;