MOTI LAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. K. Agarwal, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

(2.) I have perused both the judgments and no infirmity in these judgments is ap parently pointed out to the Court by learned counsel for the applicant.

(3.) TAKING into consideration the facts that this revision has also remained pend ing for nearly 13 years in this Court, the applicant had faced the trial for over five years and has also remained in jail for few days. Sufficient money must have been spent by him during trial as well as in contesting this revision in this Court. No useful purpose in my opinion will be served by sending the applicant to jail. It will be expedient in the interest of justice if the jail term is supplemented with a fine for the jail term imposed by the trial Court and affirmed by the lower appellate Court. It will be sufficient if a further fine of Rs. 5,000/- is imposed in lieu of the sentence. The fine of Rs. 1,000/- as imposed by the Courts below shall be in addition to this fine. In all the applicant was to pay a sum of Rs. 6,000/ -. It shall be paid within two months from the date a notice is sent by Court below for depositing the fine to him. After depositing the fine by him he will obtain a receipt issued for deposit of the fine by the Court below. The applicant will make an application to the Govern ment of U. P. for commuting his sentence under Section 433 (c ). The State Govern ment may consider the application made by the applicant in the light of the observa tion made in the judgment and pass suitable order. The applicant shall not be arrested until the decision of the State Government on his application. .