Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 323 (RAJ)

Bhamara v. State of Rajasthan

2006-02-01

H.R.PANWAR

body2006
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-This criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short the Code hereinafter) is directed against the Judgment and order dated 211.2005 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi (for short the appellate Court hereinafter) in Criminal Appeal No. 27/2003, whereby the appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 17.03.1998 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi (for short the trial Court hereinafter)in regular Criminal Case No. 245/1997, whereby the trial Court has convicted the petitioner for the offences under Sections 498-A and 324, IPC and on each count sentenced him to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, further to undergo one months simple imprisonment. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner filed an application under Section 482 of the Code stating therein that the trial Court while convicting and sentencing the petitioner has not ordered that both the sentences would run concurrently. By this application the petitioner seeks a direction that both the sentences awarded by the trial Court may be ordered to run concurrently. 3. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, in my view interest of justice would be met if both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. Accordingly, the application is allowed. Both the sentences awarded by the trial Court shall run concurrently. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the Judgment and order of the appellate Court as well as of the trial Court and record of the case. 5. At the very outset, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not want to challenge the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 489-A and 324, IPC. However, he has confined his arguments only to the point of quantum of sentence and submits that out of the sentence of 3 months on each count, the petitioner has already undergone sentence of imprisonment for more than one and a half months. He prays that the sentence awarded to the petitioner may be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner. 6. He prays that the sentence awarded to the petitioner may be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioner has already undergone sentence of imprisonment for more than one and a half months, I am of the view that ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner. 7. Consequently, the revision petition filed by petitioner Bhamara is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the petitioner and sentence of fine for the offences under Sections 498-A and 324, IPC, the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court, which are ordered to run concurrently on each count is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner. The petitioner is in jail, he be set at liberty forthwith on deposit of fine amount, if not required in any other case.