Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1554 (RAJ)

Bundu Khan v. State of Rajasthan

2015-08-20

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment/order dated 16.8.2003 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Jhalawar in Cr. Appeal No. 13/2003 whereby while maintaining the conviction and sentence of the petitioner for the offence under Sections 170, and maintaining his conviction under section 203 of Municipality Act, modified the sentence of the petitioner for the offence U/s. 203 of Municipality Act, as awarded by the trial court vide judgment/order dated 11.2.2003 passed in Criminal Case No. 330/2002, and passed the order as under: U/s. 170 of Municipality Act: To pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 7 days' simple imprisonment U/s. 203 of Municipality Act: To undergo 3 months' SI with a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 2 months' SI, instead of 6 months SI; with a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 2 month's SI. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 17.7.1998, a written report was submitted by Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Jhalrapatan. On the basis of said report, FIR No. 196/1998 was lodged by the police and investigation was commenced. After completion of investigation, the police filed the challan against the accused petitioner before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhalawar. Thereafter the charges were framed against the accused person for the offence under Sections 170 and 203 of the Municipality Act, who denied the same and claimed for trial. Thereafter the case was transferred to Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track), Jhalawar for trial. The prosecution produced its witnesses and got recorded their statements. Thereafter the statement of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC. After hearing the arguments of both the sides, the learned trial court vide judgment/order dated 15.2.2003 convicted accused petitioner for the offence under Section 170 and 203 of Municipality Act and sentenced him as under: U/s. 170 of Municipality Act: To pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 7 days' simple imprisonment U/s. 203 of Municipality Act: To undergo 6 months SI; with a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 2 month's SI. 3. Against the said judgment and order of the trial court, the petitioner preferred the appeal. 100/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 7 days' simple imprisonment U/s. 203 of Municipality Act: To undergo 6 months SI; with a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 2 month's SI. 3. Against the said judgment and order of the trial court, the petitioner preferred the appeal. The appellate court vide judgment/order dated 16.8.2003 while maintaining the conviction and sentence of the petitioner for the offence under Section 170 of Municipality Act and maintaining his conviction for the offence under Section 203 of Municipality Act, modified his sentence, as indicated above. 4. Against the said judgment, this revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner. 5. 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 1998 i.e. 17 years ago from today; the petitioner is facing the trial since the last 17 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 25 days; the petitioner is married person and having the children of marriageable age; he is not previously convicted person; 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 Cr.PC; and if not; then he should be released for the period already undergone by him in confinement, as indicated here-in-above. 6. 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. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 8. 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 on 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. (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. Impugned judgments stand modified, as indicated here in above.Petition Disposed of. *******