Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2530 (RAJ)

Yogesh Sapra v. State of Rajasthan

2008-11-18

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - By filing instant criminal revision under section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C., the accused petitioner has challenged the impugned Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.03.2008 passed by Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short 'the appellate Court') passed in criminal appeal No. 49/2007 (348/2007) by which he confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 01.05.2007 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short 'the trial Court') in case No. 55/2007.Brief facts of the case, as set up by the prosecution are that complainant Ghanshyam Das Lalwani submitted a written report on 16.08.2001 to this effect that he resides at Plot No. D-600 and the house of accused petitioner is near to his house. The accused petitioner handed over the possession of the room to him which is situated on plot No. 692. When he came there then he did not found his lock there and found lock of some other person. Certain other facts were mentioned in the written report. 2. The police on the basis of this written report registered an FIR No. 398/2001. 3. The police after investigation submitted a charge-sheet against the accused petitioner for the offence under Sections 420, 120B and 453 IPC. 4. The trial Court after hearing discharged the accused petitioner for the offence under sections 420 and 120B IPC but framed charge against the accused petitioner for the offence under section 453 IPC. 5. The prosecution in support of its case produced as many as 8 witnesses and certain documents were got exhibited. Thereafter, the statement of the accused petitioner u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. 6. The trial Court after hearing both the parties convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner vide Judgment 01.05.2007. 7. The accused petitioner being aggrieved with the impugned Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 01.05.2007 preferred a criminal appeal before appellate Court. 8. The accused petitioner being aggrieved with the Judgment dated 01.05.2007 passed by appellate Court has preferred this revision petition before this Court. 9. Mr. Abhishek Sharma counsel for the accused petitioner submits that if the allegations made in the complaint by the complainant are taken at their face value and accepted entirely, even though it does not constitute any prima facie offence or make a case against the accused petitioner. 9. Mr. Abhishek Sharma counsel for the accused petitioner submits that if the allegations made in the complaint by the complainant are taken at their face value and accepted entirely, even though it does not constitute any prima facie offence or make a case against the accused petitioner. The allegation made in the FIR and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence. Both the courts below have not considered the statements of the prosecution witnesses and committed an illegality and irregularity in convicting and sentencing the accused petitioner. Thus, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below are liable to be quashed and set-aside. 10. Mr. B.N. Sandhu, Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr. Sanjay Singhal counsel for the complainant have controverted the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the courts below have rightly convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner. 11. From the bare perusal of the impugned judgments passed by the courts below as also the statements of the prosecution witnesses it is clear that the courts below have rightly convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner for the afore-mentioned offence but in the interest of justice sentence of the accused petitioner needs modification by this Court. 12. In the result, the criminal revision petition is partly allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.03.2008 passed by Addl. District Judge No. 7, Jaipur is modified to the extent of conviction and sentencing the accused petitioner for the offence under Section 453 IPC for a period of one year Simple Imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/- instead of two years Simple Imprisonment. In case of default of payment of fine the accused petitioner shall undergo imprisonment for a period of one month simple imprisonment. The trial Court is directed to proceed in the matter with regard to conviction of accused petitioner in accordance with law.Revision Partly Allowed. *******