IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 118 of 2003 Gulam Jilani S/o Noor Khan R/o Village – Dhandhera, P.S. Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar. ………. Revisionist Versus State of Uttaranchal …….Respondent Present : Sri Tapan Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Lokpal Singh, counsel present for the revisionist. Sri G.S. Sandhu, learned G.A. present for the State/respondent. Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. This criminal revision has been directed against judgment and order dated 08.08.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/4th F.T.C., Haridwar wherein the conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee against revisionist Gulam Jilani vide its order dated 26.04.2000 remain sustained in crime No.230/86 under section 353 IPC pertaining to police station Kotwali, Roorkee Distt: Haridwar. In brief the facts are that when the police personnel raided at the house of revisionist to nab his son Guljar who was culprit in crime no.208 under section 395 IPC and the accused along with his wife and daughter pelted the stones upon the police personnel and facilitated the accused Guljar for absconding. The case was registered against revisionist Gulam along with his wife Smt. Raisa Begam and daughter Shahnaj. After trial, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee in his 2 judgment, could not sustain the charges levelled against Smt. Raisa and Shahnaj. Being a Muslim lady, they were in cloak so they could not be identified. To the disadvantage of prosecution, the evidence could not be led regarding their identity at the time of the commission of crime and learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, had acquitted them. However, revisionist Gulam Jilani was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months, which was sustained by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar. Hence, this revision. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the revisionist is now in his seventies almost septagenarian and the incident is quite quarter to century old. He relied upon precedent of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Beena Philipose and another Vs. State of Kerala reported in [(2006) 7 SCC 414] wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court also took a lenient view. That accused was very old man, and was awarded the sentence of three months and six months for the offence punishable under sections 420,421,466 and 468 of IPC. The accused had already undergone 70 days of imprisonment. In these circumstances, the Hon’ble Apex Court while taking such a lenient view although sustained the conviction but the accused was left for the period of already undergone by him in gaol. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist has already undergone 17 days in jail and he should be left on the period already undergone. While learned Government Advocate opposed that such a person who was resisting the police personnel at the spot, should not be allowed to go scot-free. Having heard the rival contentions of the parties, I feel that ends of justice will be met, while taking the facts and old age of the culprit into the consideration if the revision is 3 partly allowed with the modification in the sentence that the accused/ revisionist shall remain convicted for the aforesaid offence and sentence for the period already undergone with a fine to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- is imposed in addition. The fine amount shall be deposited within a period of two months before the trial court. If the revisionist does not pay the fine of Rs.3000/-, he will undergo two months simple imprisonment in lieu thereof. Let the lower court record be sent back forthwith for compliance of the order. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) JKJ 01.07.2011