RAM MURARI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revisionist has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 379 Indian Penal Code and Sec. 39 of the Electricity Act by the judgement and order dated 8th March, 1982 passed by Sri C.N. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Etah in criminal case No. 177 of 1962. The sentence awarded to the applicant is one year's rigorous imprisonment but it has been reduced to one month's rigorous imprisonment by the judgement and order dated 7th Aug., 1982 passed by Sri Y.P. Singh, Sessions Judge, Etah in Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 1982. In the judgement of the lower appellate court the learned Sessions Judge has himself expressed his opinion in paragraph 7 that the sentence of fine could have been sufficient to meet the ends of justice but the learned Magistrate has imposed a substantive sentence of year's rigorous imprisonment which cannot be substituted by a sentence of fine so he has reduced the substantive sentence from one year's R.I. to one month's R.I. Learned counsel does not challenge the conviction of the applicant but he is aggrieved by the sentence of substantive imprisonment. He prays that it may be substituted by a sentence of fine which will meet the ends of justice satisfactorily.The prayer is quite justified. It is a simple case of an agriculturist. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the revision is partly allowed and the sentence of imprisonment is hereby set aside. The revisionist is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 250.00 only and in default of payment of fine he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. He is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled. He is ordered to appear before the lower court (J.M. 1st class Etah) within two months from today failing which the Judicial Magistrate will issue warrant of arrest/non-bailable warrant and notices to sureties for his arrest/production. He should report compliance by 31st March, 1995 positively. Revision Allowed Partly.