Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 328 (RAJ)

Ramchandra v. State of Rajasthan

2016-02-26

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2016
ORDER : Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J. These revision petitions have been filed by the petitioners against the common judgment dated 10/12/2001 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2 Ajmer ('appellate court" for short hereinafter) passed in Appeal no. 12/2000 by which the order of the conviction and sentence for offence u/ss 3 & 4 of Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance 1949 passed by Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Ajmer ("trial court" for short hereinafter) was affirmed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by Dy. Superintendent of Police, Ajmer (North) about the search taken by him on 1.7.1983 under section 5 of the Rajasthan Gambling Ordinance, 1949 in the house No.42/500, belonging to one Harshwardhen @ Harsi. Certain gold and silver ornaments, cash, gambling stips etc. were recovered from the premises which were being used as to a common gambling house. The house was raided, accused Shankar, Ramchandra and Babu Lal were present in the house for gambling purposes. After usual investigation charge-sheet was submitted. After taking cognizance, the trial court framed charge/s against the accused petitioners, who denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried in the matter. 3. The prosecution in support of its case examined five witnesses and exhibited certain documents. Thereafter, the statement of the accused petitioners were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C and in defence no document was submitted. 4. 3. The prosecution in support of its case examined five witnesses and exhibited certain documents. Thereafter, the statement of the accused petitioners were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C and in defence no document was submitted. 4. The trial court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, convicted the accused petitioners for the afore-mentioned offence as indicated herein above vide judgment dated 8.6.2000, the relevant portion of which is reproduced as under: vfHk;qDr g"kZo/kZu mQZ gjlh iq= Jh o`ankou VaMu [k=h] fuoklh yk[ku dksVMh] vtesj dks /kkjk&3 vkj0ih0th0vks0 ,oa 2 vfHk;qDr 'kadj iq= y{e.knkl fla/kh fuoklh uyk cktkj vtesj] 3&jkepUnz iq= eaxrjke fla/kh] fuoklh nsgyh xsV] vtesj ,oa 4 & vfHk;qDr ckcwyky iq= eFkqjk izlkn ekyh] fuoklh&598@21 uckc dk csMk ekyh eksgYyk vtesj dks /kkjk 4 vkj0ih0th0vks0 dk nks"kh djkj fn;k tkrk gSA naMkns'k vfHk;qDrx.k dks ltk ds iz'u ij lquk x;kA vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us fuosnu fd;k gS fd ;g mudk izFke vijk/k gS] Hkfo"; esa vijk/k dh iqujko`fRr ugha djsaxs] vr% mUgsa ifjoh{kk ij fjgk fd;k tkosA tcfd fo}ku lgk;d yksd vfHk;kstd us mDr cgl dk fojks/k djrs gq, ;g dgk gS fd vfHk;qDrx.k ls Hkkjh ek=k esa :i;s lksus&pkanh ds tsojkr o lV~Vs dh ifpZ;kWa cjken dh xbZ gSa] vr% vfHkq;Drx.k ds fo:) leqfpr naMkns'k ikfjr fd;k tkosA eSaus mDr cgl ij euu fd;kA vfHk;qDrx.k dks xSEcfyax ds vijk/k dk nks"kh ?kksf"kr fd;k x;k gSA bl rjg ds vijk/kksa dk dqizHkko iwjs lekt ij iM+rk gS] vr% mDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, eSa vfHk;qDrx.k dks ifjoh{kk dk ykHk fn;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ugha le>rk gwWa ,oa fuEukuqlkj naMkns'k ikfjr fd;k tkrk gS& vfHk;qDr g"kZo/kZu dks /kkjk&3 vkj0ih0th0vks0 ds vijk/k ds fy, 3 ekg ds dBksj dkjkokl ds naM ls ,oa 'ks"k vfHk;qDrx.k 'kadj] jkepUnz ,oa ckcwyky dks /kkjk&4 vkj0ih0th0vks0 ds vijk/k ds fy, izR;sd dks ,d ekg ds dBksj dkjkokl ds naM ls nafMr fd;k tkrk gSA mDr vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk iwoZ esa U;kf;d vFkok iqfyl vfHkj{kk esa xqtkjh xbZ le;kfof/k] mudh mDr ewy ltk esa lek;ksftr dh tkosxhA izdj.k esa tIr'kqnk :i;s ,oa lksus pkanh ds tsojkr ckn xqtjus fe;kn vihy tIr ljdkj fd;s tkos ,oa vU; lkexzh fu;ekuqlkj u"V dh tkosA" 5. The accused petitioners aggrieved with the order of conviction dated 8.6.2000 preferred an appeal before the appellant court. The accused petitioners aggrieved with the order of conviction dated 8.6.2000 preferred an appeal before the appellant court. The appellate court vide judgment dated 10.12.2001 affirmed the order of the trial court, the relevant portion of which is reproduced as under: "ifj.kkeLo:i vihykFkhZx.k & vfHk;qDrx.k dh vihy lkjghu gksus ls fujLr dh tkrh gSA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; ,oa n.Mkns'k fnukafdr 08-06-2001 ;Fkkor j[kk tkrk gSA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dh i=koyh bl fu.kZ; dh izfr ds lkFk rqjUr v/khuLFk U;k;ky; esa fHktokbZ tkosA" 6. The accused petitioners aggrieved with both the jugments passed by the learned courts below have preferred instant criminal revision petitions before this Court. 7. Before starting arguments Mr. Rajneesh Gupta, counsel appearing for Mr. Harshvardhan @ Harsi s/o Buddhavan has submitted that accused petitioner Harshvardhan @ Harsi s/o Buddhavan has died during the pendency of the revision petition, which is clear from the endorsement made on the registered letter sent to him. The said registered letter is taken on record. Thus, the criminal revision petition filed on his behalf stands abated. 8. So far as criminal revision petitions filed by other accused petitioners namely Ramchandra, Babulal, Shanker are concerned, counsel appearing on their behalf have contended that they are not challenging the conviction part of the judgment of the courts below, but they are only requesting to this Court that looking to the fact that occurrence took place on 1/7/1983 i.e. about 33 years' ago from today and the petitioners are not the habitual offenders; they belong to a respectable family; they are poor persons; it is the first offence of their life and accused petitioners namely; Ramchandra, Babulal, Shanker have remained in custody for the period of 11, 10 and 20 days respectively. Hence either they be given the benefit of probation and if not, then they be released for the period already undergone by them in confinement, as indicated here-in-above. 9. In support of their contentions, counsel have placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex court rendered in the case of Gulab Das and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2011) 10 SCC 765 . He has further placed reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of Rajendra Harakchand Bhandari and others v. State of Maharashtra and another ( AIR 2011 SC 1821 ), relevant para 16, which is reproduced herein below: 16. He has further placed reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of Rajendra Harakchand Bhandari and others v. State of Maharashtra and another ( AIR 2011 SC 1821 ), relevant para 16, which is reproduced herein below: 16. We must immediately state that the offence under Section 307 is not compoundable in terms of Section 320(9) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and, therefore, compounding of the offence in the present case is out of question. However, the circumstances pointed out by the learned senior counsel do persuade us for a lenient view in regard to the sentence. The incident occurred on May 17, 1991 and it is almost twenty years since then. The appellants are agriculturists by occupation and have no previous criminal background. There has been reconciliation amongst parties; the relations between the appellants and the victim have become cordial and prior to the appellants' surrender, the parties have been living peacefully in the village. The appellants have already undergone the sentence of more than two and a half years. Having regard to these circumstances, we are satisfied that ends of justice will be met if the substantive sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone while maintaining the amount of fine." Learned PP appearing for the State has opposed the same. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 11. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners, I do not think it proper to release the accused petitioners on probation, but looking to the aforesaid judgments delivered by Hon'ble Apex Court, in my view, ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone by them in confinement, as indicated here-in-above. Hence, these revision petitions filed by the accused petitioners namely; Ram Chandra, Shanker and Babulal are disposed of with the following directions: (i) The revision petitions filed by petitioners namely Ramchandra, Babulal, Shanker are partly allowed. (ii) Their conviction is maintained. (iii) Their sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them in confinement, as indicated above. (iv) The sentence of the accused petitioners was suspended and they are on bail. They need not to surrender and their bail bonds stand cancelled. (ii) Their conviction is maintained. (iii) Their sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them in confinement, as indicated above. (iv) The sentence of the accused petitioners was suspended and they are on bail. They need not to surrender and their bail bonds stand cancelled. Impugned judgment stands modified, as indicated herein above. (v) The criminal revision petition filed by accused Harshvardhan alias Harsi stands abated. Petition party allowed.