Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 998 (RAJ)

Avinash Chander v. State of Rajasthan

2016-07-14

GOVERDHAN BARDHAR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mr. Goverdhan Bardhar, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This revision petition has been filed under Section 397/401 Cr.PC. against the judgment and order dated 07.11.1996 passed by learned Addl. Sessions No.3, Sriganganagar in Criminal appeal No. 7/96 by which he affirmed the judgment dated 12.06.1996 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar whereby trial Court convicted the accused-petitioner for offences under Sections 467 and 468 I.PC. The sentences awarded to accused-petitioner are as under- Offence Sentence awarded by the trial court U/S. 467 IPC To undergo one year's simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of fine, to undergo one month S.1. U/S. 468 IPC To undergo one year's simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of fine, to undergo 15 days S.1. 3. As per the case set up by the prosecution, a van was recovered from the house of one Jagannath and upon inquiry, he stated that he purchased this van 7-8 months back from Kishori Lal. It was stated that Surjit Singh sold the van to Kishori Lal and mediator was the petitioner Avinash. Accordingly, the petitioner was arrested and charge sheet was filed against the petitioner for offences under Section 411, 379, 467, 468 IPC. 4. After hearing the arguments and considering the material on record, the learned trial court framed charges against accused petitioner for offences under Sections 411, 467, 468, 379, 259, 260 & 468 IPC, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. At the trial, the prosecution examined 6 witnesses in support of its case. The accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC. denied the allegation levelled against him and claimed trial. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide judgment and order dated 12.06.1996 acquitted the petitioner for offences under Sections 379, 259 and 260 IPC but convicted the accused-petitioner for offences under Sections 467 & 468 IPC. 6. Being aggrieved of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred appeal before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.3, Sri Ganganagar, who by his judgment dated 07.11.1996 upheld the conviction of the petitioner recorded by the learned trial Court, as aforesaid. Hence, this revision. 7. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not want to challenge his conviction for the offences noticed above. Sessions Judge No.3, Sri Ganganagar, who by his judgment dated 07.11.1996 upheld the conviction of the petitioner recorded by the learned trial Court, as aforesaid. Hence, this revision. 7. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not want to challenge his conviction for the offences noticed above. However, he has confined his arguments only to the point of quantum of sentence and submits that it was the first offence and there is no adverse antecedent against the petitioner on record. The petitioner has already undergone about two months out of the total sentence awarded to him and therefore, learned counsel submits that ends of justice would meet if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner. 8. Learned public prosecutor submits that the sentence awarded by the courts below cannot be said to be disproportionate. 9. After perusing the judgment and order impugned and considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties as also the fact that petitioner has already under gone substantial period of sentence, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial court is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner. 10. Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of accused-petitioner for offences under Section 467 & 468 IPC, his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. However, the fine of Rs. 1000/- imposed by the learned court below for offence under Section 467 IPC shall stand increased to Rs. 3,000/- and fine of Rs. 500/- imposed for offence under Section 468 IPC is enhanced to Rs. 2000/-, upon same conditions imposed by the learned trial court in case of default of payment of fine. The said amount of fine shall be deposited in the trial Court within a period of 90 days from the date of this judgment.