Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2394 (RAJ)

Vagta Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2011-11-09

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard 2. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Vagta Ram under Section 397(1) read with Section 389(2) Cr.P.C, The petitioner has been convicted by the learned C.J.M., Jalore for offences under Sections 409, 467, 468, 420, 418, 477A and 471 I.P.C. and has been sentenced to a maximum imprisonment of seven years on account of offence under Sections 409 and 467 I.P.C. 3. Aggrieved by his conviction, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the appeal has been admitted by learned Sessions Judge, Jalore and is still pending consideration. The petitioner filed an application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. in, the aforesaid appeal which has been rejected by the order dated 22.9.2011. It is against the said rejection that the present revision has been filed. 4. Mr. Pradeep Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that appeal to the Sessions Court is available to the petitioner as of right and if the sentence awarded to the petitioner is not suspended, then the very right of the petitioner to prosecute the appeal shall be frustrated. He relies upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Salim Javed v. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2006) 3 SCC (Cri.) 354 , to the effect that if the accused has suffered almost half of sentence without the appeal being heard, then the sentence awarded to the accused should be suspended. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the order impugned. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the bar and perused the order impugned as well as the record of the case. 7. Un-disputedly, the petitioner is in custody since 29.7.2008 and the appeal filed by the petitioner is yet to be considered. The record of the case is voluminous. The legislature also while considering the protracted trial of the accused, has enacted Section 436A in the Code of Criminal Procedure as per which if the accused has undergone detention of half of the maximum period of imprisonment, then he has to be released on bail as of right. Though in this case, the maximum punishment provided under Sections 409 and 467 I.P.C. is imprisonment for life but the fact remains that the trial Court has punished the accused with imprisonment for seven years out of which almost half of been suffered by the petitioner. Though in this case, the maximum punishment provided under Sections 409 and 467 I.P.C. is imprisonment for life but the fact remains that the trial Court has punished the accused with imprisonment for seven years out of which almost half of been suffered by the petitioner. In this background of the case and looking to the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case or Salina Javed (supra), it is thought fit to direct the suspension of the sentences awarded by the trial Court to the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, the revision petition succeeds and the appellate Court is directed to suspend the sentence of the petitioner and release the petitioner on his furnishing bail and bonds, the terms and conditions whereof shall be decided by the appellate Court itself.Revision petition allowed. *******