Bhagwati Prasad, C.J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the State.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, submitted that he does not challenge the conviction. However, his stand is that the offence is ten years' old and it is a technical offence and after ten years, it would not be appropriate to send the accused behind bars and for that he proposes that the accused is prepared to deposit a fine of Rs. 10,000/ - and in lieu thereof his substantive sentence may be considered to be remitted. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that it is a case, which is foolproof and in that view of the matter, since minimum sentence is provided, the said view may not be taken.
(3.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties and given thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the offer of the counsel for the accused may be accepted and his case for commutation of the sentence may be recommended to the State Government under Section 433(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused will deposit the amount of fine within six weeks hence and on depositing the fine of Rs. 10,000/ -, he will approach the State Government along with the order of this Court to formulise the matter of passing appropriate order under Section 433(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the sentence would be remitted. In case of default of not depositing the fine amount within the aforesaid period, this Revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed and the Petitioner would undergo the sentence as awarded by the trial court.;