Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1511 (RAJ)

Manna Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2015-08-12

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2015
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment/order dated 17.6.2003 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, No.2, Jaipur District, Jaipur in Cr. Appeal No. 13/2001 whereby while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Secs. 409 and 467 IPC, as awarded by the trial court vide judgment dated 10.7.2001 passed in Regular Criminal Case No. 57/1984, modified his sentence as under: u/S. 409 IPC: To undergo six months' SI with a fine of Rs. 500/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month's simple imprisonment, instead of 2 year's SI; with a fine of Rs. 500/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 2 month's SI. u/S. 467 IPC: To undergo 6 months' SI with a fine of Rs. 500/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month's SI, instead of 2 year's SI; with a fine of Rs. 500/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 2 month's SI. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.10.1982, a written report along with enquiry report and audit report was received in the office of Superintendent of Police, Jaipur at Police Station, Bagru. On the basis of said report, FIR No. 214/1982 was lodged by the Police and investigation was commenced. After completion of investigation, the police filed the challan against the accused petitioner. Thereafter the charges were framed against the accused person for the offence under Secs. 409 and 467 IPC, who denied the same and claimed for trial. The prosecution produced its witnesses. The statement of accused person were recorded u/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. After hearing the arguments of both the sides, the learned trial Court vide judgment/order dated 10.7.2001 convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner as indicated above. Against the said judgment and order of the trial court, the petitioner preferred the appeal. The appellate Court vide judgment/order dated 17.6.2003 while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Sections 409, 467 IPC, modified his sentence, as indicated above. 3. Against the said judgment, this revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner. 4. Against the said judgment and order of the trial court, the petitioner preferred the appeal. The appellate Court vide judgment/order dated 17.6.2003 while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Sections 409, 467 IPC, modified his sentence, as indicated above. 3. Against the said judgment, this revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgments of the court below, but he is only requesting to this court that occurrence took place in the year 1982 i.e. 33 years ago from today; the petitioner is facing the trial since the last 33 years; when the occurrence took place, the petitioner was young and now the petitioner is old aged person suffering from oldness diseases; the petitioner has remained in custody for about 26 days; the petitioner is married person and having the children of marriageable age; he is not previously convicted person; the alleged offence is triable by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, and he is not the habitual offender, hence either he should be given the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act or Section 360 CrPC; and if not; then he should be released for the period already undergone by him in confinement, as indicated here-in-above. 5. Learned PP appearing for the State has opposed the same. He has contended that neither the accused petitioner should be given the benefit of probation nor he should be released for the period already undergone by him in confinement. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 7. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the arguments of learned counsel for the parties. I do not think it proper to release the accused petitioner or probation, but in my view, ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him in confinement, as indicated here-in-above. Hence, this revision petition is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The revision petition filed by the petitioner is partly allowed; (ii) His conviction is maintained; (iii) His sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him in confinement, as indicated above. Hence, this revision petition is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The revision petition filed by the petitioner is partly allowed; (ii) His conviction is maintained; (iii) His sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him in confinement, as indicated above. (iv) The sentence of the accused petitioner was suspended and he is on bail. He need not to surrender and his bail bonds stand cancelled. 8. Impugned judgments stand modified, as indicated hereinabove.