Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2073 (RAJ)

Jaswant Singh Chhabra v. Om Prakash

2012-10-04

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the impugned judgments. 2. Instant revision has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 13.11.1997 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar in appeal affirming the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar in Case No. 103/1989 convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 500 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment fora period of one month. 3. Counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the conviction of the petitioner but looking to the fact that the offence was committed way back in the year 1987 and considering the fact that the petitioner has already remained in custody for about seven to eight days, the sentence awarded to the petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 4. Having considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after going through the impugned judgments, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court as well as Appellate Court committed no error in convicting and affirming the conviction of the appellant for printing defamatory material in his newspaper causing defamation of the respondent. However, looking to the fact that the incident is said to have taken place way beck in the year 1988 and considering the fact that no minimum sentence is prescribed for the offence as well as the fact that the accused has already remained in custody for about eight days in this case, no useful purpose would be served by sending the accused to jail for serving out the remaining sentence of about 22 days after a long period of about 24 years for which the petitioner has faced the proceedings. Accordingly, the sentence awarded to the petitioner deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone by him. If the amount of fine is not deposited, the accused shall deposit the fine in the trial Court forthwith. 5. Resultantly, the revision succeeds in part. Accordingly, the sentence awarded to the petitioner deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone by him. If the amount of fine is not deposited, the accused shall deposit the fine in the trial Court forthwith. 5. Resultantly, the revision succeeds in part. The orders dated 13.11.1997 and 25.4.1994 are hereby modified and whilst upholding the conviction of the petitioner, the sentence awarded to the petitioner for the offence under Section 500 I.P.C. is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the amount of fine is maintained. The accused shall deposit the fine in the trial Court forthwith. In default of payment of fine the petitioner shall undergo sentence as ordered by the Court below. Record be sent back forthwith.Revision petition partly allowed. *******