Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1989 DIGILAW 983 (RAJ)

JAMNALAL v. STATE

1989-12-20

M.B.SHARMA

body1989
Judgment M. B. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) BOTH the above numbered revision petitions arise out of the same judgment dated 7-3-86 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dausa Camp. Jaipur. The said judgment was delivered in two criminal appeals Nos. 117/1979 and criminal appeal No. 89/1976. The said two - appeals have been filed against the judgment dated 8-4-76 of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. Jaipur District, Jaipur convicting each of the accused petitioner Mussadi Lal and Jamna Lal under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing the accused petitioner Mussadi Lal to undergo six months R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer 2 months R. I. and sentencing Jamna Lal to undergo 4 months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer one months R. I. The accused petitioner Mussadi Lal was also convicted under Section 120b of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 109/420 of the Indian Penal Code and on former count he was sentenced to undergo one months R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- or in default of payment of fine to further suffer 15 days R. I. Under the latter count 4 months R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer one month, R. I. The accused petitioner Jamna Lal was also convicted under Section 120b and was sentenced to undergo one months R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer 15 days R. I. ( 2 ) THE substantive sentences under both the counts were ordered to run concurrently. The learned Additional. Sessions Judge under the; impugned judgments dismissed the appeals both in respect of conviction as well as sentence. ( 3 ) THE facts of the case are contained in the judgment of two courts below and more so in the judgment of the Trial Court in detail but the only prayer which has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the case is of the year 1971 and the accused petitioner have already undergone some sentences. Not only this the entire dues of the bank have been paid and, therefore, the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act may be extended to the accused petitioners. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the case of State v. Ramados Naidu and ors. of Madras High Court and to the case of Abdul Hamid v. State of U. P. In the earlier case the court has extended the benefit of the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act under Sections 415 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 4 ) THERE can be no dispute that the incident relates to the year 1971. This court in criminal appeal No. 426/1979, while upholding the conviction of the accused-petitioner Mussadi Lal has ordered that he be released on the sentence already undergone and the fine was increased. There can be no dispute that so far as Mussadi Lal is concerned, the consideration which prevails with the court in the aforesaid appeal were more than one. At that time the accused Mussadi Lal was aged about 62 years and was suffering from heart ailment. That apart the entire dues of the bank have already been paid. I am, therefore of the opinion and taking into consideration that the case relates to the year 1971 and the entire dues of the bank have already been paid no purpose would be served if the accused petitioner is sent to jail and the sentence already undergone shall meet the ends of justice. ( 5 ) CONSEQUENTLY I partly allow both these revision petitions. While maintaining the conviction of the accused petitioner as awarded by the Trial Court and confirmed by the learned Appellate Court and it is directed that the accused petitioner Mussadi Lal is sentenced to sentence already undergone under Sections 109/420 and 120b of the Indian Penal Code and 120 of the Indian Penal Code. Under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code he will pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and indefault of payment of fine to further suffer 15 days R. I. under Section 120b he shall pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer 15 days R. I. and under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code he shall further pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and indefault of payment of fine to further suffer 15 days R. I. under Section 120b he shall pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer 15 days R. I. and under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code he shall further pay a fine of Rs. 400/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer 15 days S. I. ( 6 ) THE accused petitioner Jamna Lal in addition to sentence already undergone shall pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under Sections 120b and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Rs. 500/under Section 120b of the Indian Penal Code and Rs. 500/- under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. In case of each default, he shall further suffer 15 days S. I. Both the accused petitioners should deposit the fine with the Trial Court within two months failing which Trial Court shall take steps to get the accused petitioners apprehended to undergo the sentence in lieu of payment of fine. Petition party allowed.