Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 271 (RAJ)

Kastura @ Kalia v. State of Rajasthan

2012-02-03

NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. By the instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner seeks extension of time to comply with the judgment passed by this Court on 19.12.2011 in S.B. Cr. Appeal No. 392/1989. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed an appeal before this Court against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bali in Sessions Case No. 21/1987 dated 4.10.1989, which was partly allowed vide judgment dated 19.12.2011 and this Court, while maintaining the conviction, instead of sentencing the petitioner-accused, granted him benefit of probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 provided he furnishes personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- along with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, to be good behaviour, to maintain peace and tranquillity and shall not repeat any such offence for a period of two years and shall appear and receive the sentence whenever called upon to do so during this period. The petitioner-accused was further directed to execute such bail bond before the trial Court within a period of four weeks from the date of judgment. The petitioner-accused was also directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 5000/- towards compensation under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Upon deposit of the aforesaid amount, the same was directed to be paid to injured person Darma Ram (PW-1). 4. The petitioner-accused has failed to comply with the judgment. Therefore, this petition, seeking extension of time for complying with the judgment dated 19.12.2011, has been preferred by the petitioner-accused. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that after obtaining the certified copy of judgment dated 19.12.2011, he went to Sumerpur because the trial Court has been constituted at Sumerpur but the compliance could not be made because the judgment was passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bali and, therefore, he was advised to go to Bali and in these circumstances on 20.1.2012, he went to Bali but on that day, due to strike of advocates, necessary proceedings could not be taken and then again, the petitioner went on 21.1.2012 and submitted the application but the same could not be accepted because the time of 4 weeks had been expired. So he prays that this petition may be allowed and the time to comply with the judgment dated 19.12.2011 passed by this Court in S.B. Cr. Appeal No. 392/1989 may be extended. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that if the time as sought by the petitioner is extended, he has no objection. 7. Having considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the facts and circumstances, in my opinion, interest of justice would be met if further two weeks' time is granted to the petitioner- accused to comply with the judgment dated 19.12.2011 passed in S.B. Cr. Appeal No. 392/ 1989. 8. Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and further two weeks' time is granted to the petitioner- accused to comply with the judgment dated 19.12.2011-passed in S.B. Cr. Appeal No.392/1989.Petition allowed. *******