Prahlad Vs. Saleem
& ANR.  INSC 1814 (22 October 2008)
JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.501 OF 2000 Prahlad ...Appellant(s) Versus
Saleem & Anr. ...Respondent(s) O R D E R 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/- -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.
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.