IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE 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.

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.

......................J.       [B.N. AGRAWAL]

......................J.       [G.S. SINGHVI]

......................J.       [AFTAB ALAM]

New Delhi, October 22, 2008.