Furkan @ Boddu vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J

The Revisionist is a convict for commission of the offence under Section 500 I.P.C., which stood adjudicated against him by the judgment dated 11th March, 2015, as rendered by the 1st Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nainital in Criminal Complaint Case No. 523 of 2013, Dr. Sahraj Ali Vs. Khurshid and another. As a consequence of the order of conviction, the revisionist has been directed to undergo a simple imprisonment for a period of three months. This order of conviction dated 11th March, 2015, was challenged in an Appeal by the revisionist, which was filed at a belated stage along with the delay condonation application seeking condonation of four years four months and 24 days delay. The application for condonation of delay was rejected by the Sessions Judge, Nainital by the impugned order dated 9th August, 2019, and as a consequence thereto, the Appeal preferred by revisionist against the order of conviction for the offence under Section 500 IPC too stood dismissed affirming the judgment dated 11th March, 2015. In the Revision, the challenge is given by the revisionist to the order of conviction dated 11th March, 2015 as well as the order of 9th August, 2019, as passed by the Sessions Court in Misc. Case No. 94 of 2019, Khurshid and another Vs. State and others, whereby the delay condonation application of the revisionist was rejected and as a consequence thereto the appeal also stood dismissed.

The registry has reported that there is a delay of 1534 days in filing the Revision, but, the fact remains that the delay is not being determined by the registry from the date of rejection of the delay condonation application, rather from the date of conviction by the Trial Court, i.e. 11.03.2015. The revision, itself, which was preferred by the revisionist on 21st August, 2019 would be otherwise well within the limitation, but, from the report, it seems that since the challenge has also been given by the revisionist to the order of conviction dated 11th March, 2015, the delay has been computed by the Registry from the date of the principal order of conviction as rendered by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital in the Complaint Case No. 523 of 2013.

After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that, in fact, the delay, if at all, which is to be considered for the purposes of filing the present revision, rationally, it ought to have been considered as on the date when the delay condonation application of the revisionist stood rejected, i.e. 9th August, 2019, because rightly or wrongly he was having his recourse exhausted, which was otherwise also available to him under law before the Sessions Court. Thus, in fact, the delay, which has been determined by the registry is, in fact, if it is computed from the date of the order, i.e. 9th August, 2019, rejecting the delay, the delay as reported by the Registry could be said that it has been wrongly reported to be of 1534 days.

This contention and the argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist is also supported by the counsel for the respondents, his argument is only limited to the extent of determination of the period of limitation as made by the Registry. Consequently, without venturing into the intricacies of the determination of the limitation by the Registry, reporting the delay of 153 days, considering the fact that the said limitation is not being seriously opposed by the respondents, the same would stand condoned and the revision would be treated to have been preferred within time.

Now, the question, which comes for determination before this Court is that in pursuance to the order of the conviction dated 11th March, 2015, the revisionist has been convicted and sentenced to undergo a simple imprisonment for a period of three months, for commission of the offence under Section 500 of the IPC. As per the document, which has been brought on record and which has been placed by the revisionist before this Court, according to his argument also, it is shown that the revisionist on account of a belated filing of the Appeal and on account of the pendency of the present Revision too, where the challenge has been given to the order dated 9th August, 2019, rejecting the delay condonation application. During the intervening period, the revisionist was taken into custody and he has been serving his sentence as imposed by the learned Trial Court by the order dated 11th March, 2015.

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that as a consequence of the order of conviction dated 11th March, 2015, wherein, he has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months, i.e. approximately 93 days, out of which, the revisionist contends and not disputed by respondent, that he has already served the sentence for the period of about 48 days. If that be so, this Court is of the view that a pragmatic view has to be taken particularly in relation to the nature of offence, for which, the revisionist has been convicted and on account of the fact that the revisionist has already undergone and served major party of the sentence of 48 days out of total 93 days of sentence, this Court is of the view that the revisionist deserves to be acquitted of the offence and sentence as imposed upon him by the impugned judgment dated 11th March, 2015 for commission of offence under Section 500 of the IPC on the ground that he has already undergone the major portion of sentence imposed upon him.

But, this could be one aspect while considering the present revision on its merit on the sentence imposed. This Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that as far as the dignity of the academic institution and in particular the faculty, which is imparting the education in the institution to the students, their prestige and reputation is also one of the prime factor to be taken care of and has also to be safeguarded simultaneously and it cannot be kept at bay to be spoiled by the person like the revisionist by manhandling or misbehaving with them, who can manhandle the faculty members by misbehaving with them at their whims. This cannot be permitted to be perpetuated under the licence of the judgment being rendered by the Court by acquitting the person or discharging him on account of the sentence having been undergone, while allowing the present Revision and setting aside the order of conviction dated 11th March, 2015, on the ground that the revisionist has already undergone the sentence for a major segment of the period of the punishment imposed upon him.

This Revision is allowed. The impugned orders under challenge are quashed. The revisionist is directed to be released forthwith on the service of the certified copy of this judgment. However, it is made clear by a word of caution to the revisionist and such other student fraternity that in case if there is any re-occurrence of the said offence under Section 500 I.P.C. by the revisionist, he will be simultaneously dealt with sternly in accordance with law for any future offences of the like nature.

Subject to the aforesaid observations, the Revision stands allowed qua the revisionist.