IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No. 12/2003 (Under Section 482 of the CrPC) Narender Kumar Pant …….Revisionist Versus State of Uttaranchal ……Respondent Mr. L.K. Tiwari, Advocate, for the revisionist. Mr. P.S. Bohara, Brief Holder, for the State. 10th August, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. This revision has been directed against the judgment and order dated 11.2.2003 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal in Criminal Appeal No. 9/98, Narender Kumar Pant v. State. In the said appeal, the judgment and order of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal dated 31.1.1998 was confirmed which was delivered in Criminal Case No. 155/97. In the said trial court case, accused revisionist was convicted for the offence of Section 337 IPC and was asked to undergo six months’ imprisonment nay the fine of Rs. 500/-. He was further convicted for the offence of Section 304-A IPC and was asked to undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment nay the fine of Rs. 4500/-. 2. The learned Counsel for the revisionist does not advance any arguments towards the merits of the case but only has prayed mercy for the condonation of the term of sentence of imprisonment. It has also been prayed that if in the opinion of the Court deemed proper, then the fine may be enhanced in lieu of condonation of the sentence of imprisonment. The learned Counsel has also apprised this Court that initially the revisionist has been in gaol for 8 days 2 at the time of his first remand and later after failure of his appeal in the Sessions Court till the acceptance of his bail bonds in pursuance of the bail order passed by this revisional court, he has been under incarceration for 21 days. This way he has already undergone 29 days’ incarceration. The incident is also of 3.10.1995. Thus, the revisionist is facing the criminal proceedings at various levels since then and passing under an anguish. 3. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court also feels that the ends of justice will be met if the sentence of imprisonment as awarded to the revisionist by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court is reduced to the sentence of 29 days which he has already undergone, but the fine is enhanced as under: (i) For the offence of Section 337 IPC, the fine is left intact. (ii) For the offence of Section 304-A IPC, the fine is enhanced to the tune of Rs. 11,500/- instead of Rs. 1000/-. (iii) The fine already paid, if any, shall be adjusted and the remaining amount of fine shall be deposited by the revisionist within one month from the date of receipt of this judgment and order in the trial court. 4. With the modification as above in the impugned judgments and orders passed by the courts below, this revision is partly allowed. 5. Let the lower court record be sent back for compliance of the order. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 10.8.2011 Prabodh