Moti Lal vs State of U.P.

S.K. Agarwal, J.—Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

I have perused both the judgments and no infirmity in these judgments is apparently pointed out to the Court by learned counsel for the applicant.

The only argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant is that prosecution is for milk and nearly 19 years are going to elapse since the sample was taken. The first conviction of the applicant was recorded by the trial Court as far back as on 521986. His appeal was dismissed by the appellate Court on 331987. His revision was admitted by this Court on 631987 and he was granted bail on that very date by this Court. Thus the applicant had remained in jail for nearly 46 days after dismissal of his appeal.

In this view of the matter it will not be proper to send the applicant to jail.

Taking into consideration the facts that this revision has also remained pending 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 Government of U.P. for commuting his sentence under Section 433 (c). The State Government may consider the application made by the applicant in the light of the observation made in the judgment and pass suitable order. The applicant shall not be arrested until the decision of the State Government on his application. .

This revision is disposed of accordingly.

Office is directed to send a copy of this order forthwith to the Court concerned for necessary compliance of the order. The Magistrate is under an obligation to send a compliance report to this Court immediately on the compliance of this order.

Revision disposed of.