STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. MUSTUFAKHAN BISMILLAKHAN PATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate of Court No. 7 at Ahmedabad on 27th January 1983 in Criminal Case No. 819 of 1982 is under challenge in this appeal only for the limited purpose of adequacy of sentence under Sec. 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Cr. P.C. for brief). Thereby the learned trial Magistrate convicted the respondent - accused of the offence punishable under Sec. 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the I.P.C. for brief) and sentenced him to fine of Rs. 75.00 in default imprisonment for 15 days and also of the offence punishable under Sec. 135(i) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (the Act for brief) and sentenced him to fine of Rs. 20.00 in default simple imprisonment for 10 days.

(2.) It is not necessary to set out in detail the facts giving rise to this appeal. It may be sufficient to note that the respondent - accused was charged with the offences punishable under Secs. 324 and 504 of the I.P.C. and Sec. 135(i) of the Act for causing injuries to Latifbhai Abdulbhai and his father Abdulbhai with a razor and abusing them with filthy words at about 10-30 a.m. on 8th February 1982 near Deluxe Hair Dresser situated at Kalupur at Ahmedabad. The chargesheet against the respondent - accused was submitted in Court No. 7 of the Metropolitan Magistrate's Court at Ahmedabad on 4th May 1982. The charge against the accused was framed on 18th August 1982 at Exh. 3 on the record of the trial. He did not plead guilty to the charge. Thereupon, he was tried. After recording the prosecution evidence and after recording the further statement of the respondent - accused under Sec. 313 of the Cr. P.C. and after hearing arguments, by his judgment and order passed on 27th January 1983, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate of Court No. 7 at Ahmedabad convicted the respondent-accused of the offence punishable under Sec. 324 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to fine of Rs. 75.00 in default imprisonment for 15 days and also of the offence punishable under Sec. 135(i) of the Act and sentenced him to fine of Rs. 20.00 in default simple imprisonment for 10 days. The inadequacy of sentence aggrieved the prosecution agency. It has, therefore, invoked the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Sec. 377 of the Cr. P.C. for enhancement of the sentence.

(3.) In view of Sec. 377(3) of the Cr. P.C. the respondent-accused can plead for his acquittal or even for the reduction of the sentence. Learned Advocate Shri Barejia for the respondent-accused has, however, not chosen to remain present. This Court has received no assistance from learned Advocate Shri Barejia for the respondent-accused on this score. However, in view of the binding ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Bani Singh v. State of U.P., reported in 1996 SCC (Cri.) 848, this Court will have to decide the matter on merits after perusing the record of the case whether or not any assistance is received from the learned Advocate for the respondent-accused.