Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1425 (RAJ)

Narain Das v. State of Rajasthan

2011-07-19

NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for parties. 2. Petitioner has preferred this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against judgment and order dated 20th August, 2002 passed by Judge, Special Court (Communal Riots Man Singh Hatya Kand), Jaipur in Criminal Appeal No. 70/01, whereby appellate court, while maintaining the order of conviction passed by trial court under Section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962, reduced the sentence from six months rigorous imprisonment to three months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional one month imprisonment. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner does not challenge the order of conviction of the petitioner in view of concurrent finding of facts about commitment of offence and prayed that the incident took place in the year 1991, it is 20 years old matter. Petitioner has already remained in jail for about 34 days, therefore, sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment may be reduced to a period of imprisonment of 34 days already undergone by petitioner. 4. Learned public prosecutor, in view of fact that petitioner is not challenging his conviction, does not seriously oppose the prayer of learned counsel for petitioner to reduce the sentence of imprisonment. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for parties and examined the impugned judgments as well as record of both the courts below. 6. The Superintendent (Prosecution), Central Excise and Customs Department, Office of Commissioner, Jaipur filed a criminal complaint against petitioner Narain Das and one another co-accused Amar Chand under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Rajasthan, Jaipur in respect of incident took place on 28th April, 1991. Learned trial court vide its order dated 29th November, 1996 took cognizance of the offence under Section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 and summoned the accused persons. In pre-charge evidence, the statements of PW. 1 B.L. Verma and PW. 2 B.L. Sharma were recorded. Thereafter, a charge was framed against accused persons. Both the accused persons denied the charge and claimed trial. PW. 1 and PW. 2 were summoned for cross-examination. Thereafter, prosecution examined PW. 3 Pradeep Kumar and on completion of prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, the statements of DW. Thereafter, a charge was framed against accused persons. Both the accused persons denied the charge and claimed trial. PW. 1 and PW. 2 were summoned for cross-examination. Thereafter, prosecution examined PW. 3 Pradeep Kumar and on completion of prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, the statements of DW. 1 Rugharam Goyal, DW. 2 Gordhan Das, DW. 3 Rikhabdas, DW. 4 Radhey Shyam and DW. 5 Amar Chand were recorded. 7. Learned trial court, after considering the submissions of parties and considering the evidence on record of the case, convicted and sentenced the accused persons of the offence under Section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- to each accused person and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month’s additional imprisonment. Being aggrieved with the same, both the accused persons preferred an appeal. During pendency of appeal, the co-accused Amar Chand died. Learned appellate court vide its order dated 20th August, 2002 dismissed the appeal of petitioner. 8. From the above facts and evidence on record and further that no illegality or perversity has been pointed out in concurrent finding of facts recorded by both the Courts below, I do not find any reason to interfere in the finding of facts recorded by both the Courts below. In my view, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the accused petitioner of the above offence. Learned first appellate Court has rightly dismissed the appeal. 9. So far as the reduction of period of imprisonment is concerned, there is no dispute that petitioner remained in jail for about 5 days during investigation/trial and further remained in jail for 29 days after dismissal of his appeal by the appellate Court on 20th August, 2002 and before his release on bail as per bail order of this Court dated 18th September, 2002, therefore, petitioner has already remained in custody for about 34 days. Learned first appellate Court has reduced the sentence to three months rigorous imprisonment. The incident took place in the year 1991 and it is 20 years old matter. The petitioner has already faced trial before the trial Court and further suffered mental agony during pendency of his appeal and revision petition before appellate Court and this Court. Learned first appellate Court has reduced the sentence to three months rigorous imprisonment. The incident took place in the year 1991 and it is 20 years old matter. The petitioner has already faced trial before the trial Court and further suffered mental agony during pendency of his appeal and revision petition before appellate Court and this Court. Therefore, in my view, ends of justice will meet in case his sentence of imprisonment is reduced to a period of 34 days imprisonment already undergone by him. 10. Consequently, revision petition of the petitioner is partly allowed. His conviction under Section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act is maintained, but his sentence of imprisonment is reduced from three months rigorous imprisonment to a period of 34 days rigorous imprisonment already undergone by him. So far as the amount of fine is concerned, the same will remain as it is as per direction of trial Court and upheld by the appellate Court. He is on bail. He needs not to surrender. His bail bonds are discharged.Petition allowed. *******