IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No. 17/2002 Pooran Singh ……… Revisionist Versus State of Uttaranchal ………. Respondent Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, Advocate, for the revisionist. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, GA, for the State. 16th June, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Sri Pooran Singh, the convict under Section 452 and 506 IPC, has preferred this revision against his conviction, which was sustained by the Sessions Judge, Bageshwar vide his judgment and order dated 23.3.2002. Initially he was tried by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bageshwar for an incident dated 24.9.1993, Crime No. 1/93, Patwari Circle Loharkhet, District Bageshwar and after recording the evidence, he concluded the trial in conviction by passing the sentence for one year imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 452 IPC and repeated the same sentence and fine for the offence under Section 506 IPC and in default of fine, three months’ simple imprisonment in addition was ordered to be gone. 2. The learned Counsel for the revisionist has prayed the mercy of this Court for the reason that the incident is of 18 years old and the accused person might not be so inimical as he would have at the time of incident. He has further stated that the accused revisionist has been in gaol from 23.3.2002 to 10.4.2002 i.e. for 19 days. 2 3. In the circumstances, as above, I think the accused revisionist Sri Pooran Singh should be convicted only with the sentence of fine and undergone sentence, as above. However, fine of Rs. 500/- is enhanced to Rs. 1000/- for each offences i.e. offence under Section 452 IPC and offence under Section 506 IPC. With this modification in sentence, the revision is partly allowed. The judgment and order of the trial court as well as of the lower appellate court is modified to the extent indicated above. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 16.6.2011 Prabodh