Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2484 (RAJ)

Yogendra Dadhich v. State of Rajasthan

2008-11-11

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - By filling instant criminal revision petition the petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 17.6.2008 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2 Bundi (for short 'the appellate court') in criminal Appeal No. 3/2008, by which he maintained the judgment of conviction dated 24.4.2008 passed by Addl. Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class No. 3, Bundi in criminal Case No. 293/2007 convicting the accused petitioner under Sections 128/177, 39/192, 147/196, 3/181 and 179/177 of the Motor Vehicles Act and given benefit of probation after admonition under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act and also directed to deposit Rs. 300/- towards expenses of the prosecution. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Complainant Amar Singh, ASI along with Nand Singh was busy in maintaining the traffic at Circuit House Chauraha. It was mentioned that at that time, one Motor-cycle came and the same was stopped and the documents were asked. The driver of the vehicle told that he is an advocate and Motor-cycle No. RJ-08-2M-0190. There were three passengers, sitting on the motor-cycle and when he tried to prepare challan than the petitioner told that he is an advocate and he is not having any document of the vehicle and he used to go in the same manner. He tried to get him understand but he became annoyed and told not to prepare challan and also refused to give his name and address and also refused to sign and in the same heat told that he has seized the vehicle and now he will come to leave the vehicle at the house. He seized the vehicle under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicle Act and now lodged the report. Afterwards the complaint was filed before the Court under Sections 128/177, 39/191, 146/196 and 3/181 of the Motor Vehicle Act. 3. After registration of the case the court took cognizance of the case. 4. The substance was read over to the petitioner. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. The trial Court after hearing both the parties convicted the accused petitioner and granted benefit of probation after admonition under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act and imposed penalty towards expenses of the prosecution vide judgment dated 24.4.2008. 6. The petitioner being aggrieved with the impugned judgment dated 24.4.2008 preferred an appeal before the appellate Court. 7. 5. The trial Court after hearing both the parties convicted the accused petitioner and granted benefit of probation after admonition under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act and imposed penalty towards expenses of the prosecution vide judgment dated 24.4.2008. 6. The petitioner being aggrieved with the impugned judgment dated 24.4.2008 preferred an appeal before the appellate Court. 7. The appellate Court after hearing both the parties maintained the judgment of conviction vide judgment dated 17.6.2008. 8. The accused petitioner being aggrieved with the impugned judgment dated 17.6.2008 passed by the appellate court, has preferred instant petition before this Court. 9. Mr. A.K. Gupta, counsel for the accused petitioner submits that courts below have totally ignored this aspect of the case that there was no intention to commit the offence of taking three persons on motor-cycle. The material available on record clearly goes to show that one person was seriously ill and one person Nathu Lal was also sitting after catching him. The learned courts below have observed that Auto-Ricksha was available out side the Court as admitted by DW1 Hari Prasad, so if Had Prasad was serious, then he should have gone on auto-riksha and he should not have gone to the house directly and he should not have been taken for the medical aid. The prosecution witnesses have made improvements, omissions and contradictions in their testimony. Thus, the impugned judgments passed by the courts below are liable to be quashed and set-aside. 10. Per contra Mr. B.N. Sandhu, Public Prosecutor assisted controverted the afore-mentioned submissions and submitted that the Courts below have rightly convicted the accused petitioner. 11. I have heard counsel appearing for the respective parties and carefully gone through the entire material available on record. 12. From the bare perusal of the entire material available on record, it is clear that both the courts below have rightly convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner. Thus, no interference is required to be made in the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below. 13. In the result, this criminal revision petition is devoid of merits and stands rejected.Revision Dismissed. *******