Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1926 (RAJ)

Sohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2015-11-20

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. Heard. 2. Issue notice. Learned Public Prosecutor accepts notice for the State. 3. With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned P.P. the matter is being heard and decided today itself. 4. The petitioner after facing trial in the Court of learned C.J.M. Jaisalmer was convicted for the offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and was sentenced to different counts of punishment with maximum sentence of imprisonment for a period of five years by judgment dated 2.11.2015. Immediately on passing of the judgment of conviction, the petitioner was sent to judicial custody. He challenged the judgment of conviction by preferring an appeal under section 374 Cr.P.C. before the learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer. An application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. was also moved with the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge. However, such application was rejected by order dated 7.11.2015 whereupon the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this misc. petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that challenging the judgment of conviction passed by a Magistrate is the right of the accused. The first appeal against conviction has to be entertained as of right. He drew Court's attention towards the findings recorded by the Appellate Court at para no. 11 of its order wherein the Court itself observed that the Sessions Court is overburdened with judicial work. Learned counsel thus submits that the possibility of appeal preferred by the petitioner being heard in near future is virtually negligible. He further submits that the petitioner has strong grounds for challenging the conviction, and therefore, the adverse findings on merit recorded by the learned sessions court in the impugned order amounts to virtually frustrating the purpose of filing of appeal and thereby prejudicing petitioner's right of appeal. He thus prays that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and the learned Appellate Court be directed to suspend the sentences awarded to the petitioner and to release him on bail during pendency of the appeal. 5. Learned P.P., on the other hand, vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the order under challenge. 7. 5. Learned P.P., on the other hand, vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the order under challenge. 7. Suffice it to say that first appeal against the judgment of conviction is a right available to the accused under the Code of Criminal Procedure. If during the pendency of the appeal the accused is kept in custody then very purpose of filing appeal is likely to be frustrated unless of course, the appeal itself can be heard and decided expeditiously. Learned Appellate Court, whilst rejecting the application for suspension of sentences preferred by the appellant was swayed by the fact that the alleged defalcation was of the amount to the tune of Rs.25 lacs and the conviction of the petitioner could be secured after long proceedings of 25 years. However, the order does not state that the delay in trial was attributable to the petitioner accused. The learned Sessions Judge also observed that the Sessions Court is heavily burdened with judicial work. Therefore, apparently there appears to be a remote chance of early disposal of the appeal preferred by the petitioner. In this background, this Court is of the opinion that there was no justification available with the Sessions court for rejecting the prayer made by the accused for suspension of sentences during pendency of the appeal. 8. The misc. petition thus deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer dated 7.11.2015 is quashed and set aside. The sentences awarded to the petitioner by the learned C.J.M., Jaisalmer vide judgment dated 2.11.2015 shall remain suspended provided the petitioner furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1 lakh with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the competent Court for his appearance before the learned Appellate Court during the course of hearing of the appeal and ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the usual conditions. Petition allowed.