9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Conviction under section 419 read with section 109 of the Indian Penal Code without proper charge or evidence. Error in upholding the fine and imprisonment in default. Analysis: The appellant was initially convicted for various offences under the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3,000. Upon appeal, the High Court substituted the conviction under section 419 read with section 109, reducing the sentence to two years but maintaining the fine. However, the High Court failed to examine the evidence related to the original charges and did not establish the facts supporting those charges. The High Court convicted the appellant for abetting the execution of a false affidavit, which was not a charge in the trial court. This led to an error as the appellant was never tried or charged for cheating the Oath Commissioner. The High Court did not assess if all elements of cheating were present, as required by law. Thus, the conviction under section 419 read with section 109 was unjustified, and the High Court erred in substituting it for the original conviction without proper examination of facts. The High Court also erred in upholding the fine of Rs. 3,000 without addressing the imprisonment in default. By affirming the fine, the High Court impliedly approved the imprisonment in default, which was illegal. The maximum term of imprisonment in default should have been nine months, as per the law, but the High Court's decision of two years was in violation of the legal provisions. The trial court's original sentence was valid as it considered multiple offences, each punishable with seven years of imprisonment. The High Court's failure to rectify this error further highlights the inadequacies in their judgment. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction under section 419 read with section 109 was set aside, and the case was remanded to the High Court for a rehearing on the original charges based on proper evidence and legal considerations. In conclusion, the Supreme Court found errors in the High Court's judgment regarding the conviction under section 419 read with section 109 and the upheld fine and imprisonment in default. The lack of proper examination of evidence, absence of relevant charges, and failure to adhere to legal sentencing guidelines led to the decision to set aside the conviction and remand the case for a fresh hearing.
|
