Perused the records.
Trial Court acquitted the sole appellant of the charge under Section 406 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860, [hereinafter referred to as “I.P.C.”]. Against the order
of acquittal, when the matter was taken to the High Court in appeal by the
complainant, the same has been allowed, order of acquittal set aside and the appellant
has been convicted under Section 406 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rupees one thousand; in
default, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of three months.
Having perused the records, we are of the view that the High Court was
quite justified in convicting the appellant as the order of acquittal rendered by the
Trial Court suffered from the vice of perversity.
...2/-
An affidavit of urgency was filed before the grant of leave in which it has
been mentioned that the appellant was in custody from March, 2000. This Court,
while granting leave, directed the appellant to be released on bail by order dated 5th
June, 2000. From these facts, it appears that the appellant has remained in custody
for a period of about three months. In our view, ends of justice would be met in case
the sentence of imprisonment awarded against the appellant is reduced to the period
already undergone by him.
Accordingly, the criminal appeal is allowed in-part and, while upholding
the conviction of the appellant, sentence of imprisonment awarded against the
appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him.
The appellant, who is on bail, is discharged from the liability of bail bonds.
New Delhi, October 22, 2008.