SUKHMAL CHAND JAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present revision petition under Section 401 Cr.P.C., against the judgment dated 21.10.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, disposing of the appeal preferred by him against the judgment dated 25.11.2004, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in respect FIR No. 140/1992, convicting him for the offences under Section 420 read with Section 511 IPC, besides conviction under Sections 468 and 471 IPC, followed by an order of sentence dated 30.11.2004 sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for a period of 21/2 years each for the offences under Section 468 IPC and Section 420 read with Section 511 IPC, apart from imposition of fine of 2,500/- each for the two offences and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each for the said offences. In addition, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of 1,000/- for the offences under Section 471 IPC and in default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 7 days.

(2.) Under the impugned judgment, the learned ASJ dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and confirmed the order of conviction passed against him. However, on the order on sentence, he reduced the sentence of imprisonment for the offences under Section 420 read with Section 511 IPC and Section 468 IPC from 21/2 years each to rigorous imprisonment for one year each. Similarly, the sentence of imprisonment for the offence under Section 471 IPC was reduced from one year rigorous imprisonment to six months rigorous imprisonment. The sentence of fine imposed on the petitioner was however maintained and confirmed. It was ordered that the imprisonment awarded for different offences would run concurrently, while granting the petitioner the benefit of Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment in appeal, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition.

(3.) At the outset, counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner does not propose to assail the impugned order of conviction on merits and confines his submissions to the order of sentence by requesting that the petitioner be released by reducing the sentence to the period undergone by him, from 21.10.2009, the date on which the impugned judgment came to be passed, till 29.1.2010, which is stated to be the date of his release, on the basis of order dated 25.01.2010 passed in the present petition, which totals to 109 days.