Rajendra Singh and Anr. vs State

J.C. Misra, J.—This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 7783 passed by Sessions Judge, Bareilly dismissing the appeal preferred against the judgment and order dated 19583 passed by the Munsif MagistrateVIII, Bareilly convicting the revisionist under Section 467, I.P.C. and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for 2 1/2 years and to a fine of Rs. 500. The revisionist Dr. M.M. Kadri had according to the prosecution identified the coaccused Rajendra Singh who had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 1,150 from the post office Saving Bank Account No. 870281. Both the Courts below believed the prosecution case and held that the accused Rajendra Singh had withdrawn the amount. It was also held that the revisionist Dr. Kadri had identified Rajendra Singh who had withdrawn the amount representing himself to be accountholder Laxmi Narain. The revisionist Parsadi had affixed his thumbmark as identifying witness.

The prosecution adduced expert evidence and established that the accountholder Laxmi Narain had not affixed his thumb impression. It was established that the revisionist Parsadi and Dr. Kadri had identified the person who had submitted withdrawal form. In view of this clinching evidence the Court below rightly held that the prosecution case was proved to the hilt. The finding does not suffer from any error.

Both revisionist Rajendra and Parsadi absconded and all attempts to secure their attendance to prove futile. The report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti dated 9899 reveals that the nonbailable warrant of arrest could not be executed against them and, therefore, proceedings under Sections 82 and 83, Cr. PC. were started. The Chief Judicial Magistrate''s report dated 111099 reveals that the properties of the revisionist were attached. On 25899 Sri R.C. Kundpal stated that the revisionist are ready and willing to surrender in Court. Despite this statement neither of the revisionist surrendered on 9999 Sri K.C. Kandpal stated in the Court that he has not received any information whether they have surrendered or not. In view of this statement the Chief Judicial Magistrate was directed to issue nonbailable warrant of arrest of the revisionist and also to initiate proceedings under Sections 82 and 83, Cr. PC. as stated before the Chief Judicial Magistrate has reported that despite attachment of the property of the revisionists they could not be arrested.

Sri R.C. Kandpal, the learned counsel for the revisionist has pressed this revision on the question of sentence only. He stated that the offence was committed long before in the year 1971 and the revision filed by the accused is pending since 1983. He also contended that in view of the old age of the accused and delay in the disposal of the revision the accused should not be sent to jail.

It is true that the circumstance of the case warrant that the sentence of imprisonment may be altered to sentence of fine which would meet ends of justice. However, since the revisionists are absconding and the learned counsel appeared to press the revision after all the attempts to secure their arrest proved futile. They did not surrender despite the statement made by the learned Counsel in the Court.

On consideration of the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the view that sentence of imprisonment for two months and to fine would meet ends of justice.

The revision is partly allowed. The sentence awarded is modified. Both the revisionists are sentences to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two moths besr''es Rs. 10,000 as fine. In default of payment of fine the revisionist shall each undergo simple imprisonment for three months each. Revision partly allowed.