SIKANDAR MEHTAR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed on behalf of the applicant/accused under section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.8.2006 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rewa in Cr.A No.243/05 whereby affirming his conviction under section 458 and 394 of the IPC held by the JMFC, Rewa in Cr.C.No.283/05, he has been directed to undergo for RI 3 years with fine of Rs.300/- separately in both the sections with a direction that in default of depositing the fine amount he has to suffer further one month SI in both the counts separately. The awarded jail sentence have been directed to run concurrently.

(2.) Without challenging the findings of the impugned judgment holding conviction against the applicant for the offence under section 458 and 394 of the IPC, the applicant's counsel has made his limited submission only for reducing his jail sentence saying that out of the awarded jail sentence he had suffered 11 months and 15 days in judicial custody during pendency of the trial before the trial court. Subsequent to it, although, his jail sentence was suspended by the appellate court but in compliance of such order, he did not furnish the bail bonds so till disposal of the appeal he remained in custody and, in such premises, he suffered further jail sentence near about 24 months and 13 days. Subsequent to passing the impugned judgment dated 21.8.2006 by the appellate court till passing the order for suspension of his jail sentence on 14.2.2007, he remained in jail custody near about 5 months and 20 days in jail and, now since last more than one month, he is facing the jail sentence under execution of the non-bailable warrant issued against him on account of his non-appearance in compliance of the said order. Accordingly, he has suffered more than 2 years and 7 months of the jail sentence out of the awarded sentence. He also argued that the applicant did not have any criminal past or the antecedent except the present case, therefore, he being first offender, some lenient view be adopted for reduction of his jail sentence. With these submissions, he prayed to allow this revision for the limited purpose to reduce the jail sentence upto the period for which he has already undergone.

(3.) Responding the aforesaid argument, by justifying the impugned judgment, conviction and sentence awarded to the applicant, learned State counsel submits that in view of the available evidence and looking to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was committed by the applicant, he does not deserve either for extending acquittal or to reduce the jail sentence and prayed for dismissal of this revision.