Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 713 (RAJ)

Babu Lal S/o Shri Alpu Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2024-05-01

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2024
JUDGMENT : Manoj Kumar Garg, J. 1. Instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment dated 08.07.2003 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.3, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellate court’) in Criminal Appeal No.14/2003 by which the appellate court modified the conviction and sentence of the petitioners awarded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pipar City in Original Cr. Case No.242/1992 vide order dated 06.08.2001. The details of the conviction and sentence of the petitioners as modified by the learned appellate court are as under : Appellant No.1 : Babu Lal S.No. Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in default of fine 1. 420 IPC 2 years SI Rs.3,000/- 1 month SI 2. 471 IPC 6 months SI Rs.1,000/- 15 days SI 3. 467/120B IPC 2 years SI Rs.2,000/- 1 month SI 4. 468/120B IPC 1 year SI Rs.2,000/- 15 days SI Appellant No.2 : Alpu Ram S.No. Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in default of fine 1. 420/120B IPC 2 years SI Rs.3,000/- 1 month SI 2. 471 IPC 6 months SI Rs.1,000/- 15 days SI 3. 467/120B IPC 2 years SI Rs.2,000/- 1 month SI 4. 468/120B IPC 1 year SI Rs.2,000/- 15 days SI All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 09.03.1989, complainant Laxmikant Bohra, Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Pipar City submitted a complaint before the concerned Court to the effect that on raising illegal constructions upon a vacant land by the accused-petitioner No.1 Babu Lal, a notice was issued to him by the Municipal Board, Pipar. In response to the said notice, petitioner No.1 submitted an application for seeking permission to raise construction of boundary wall over the disputed land. A copy of patta of the said land in dispute was also filed. On verification, it was found that the said patta as well as power of attorney was prepared fraudulently by the accused-petitioners. 3. The said complaint was sent to the concerned Police Station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation. On receiving the complaint, Police registered a case against the accused-petitioners for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and started investigation. 4. On completion of investigation, the police filed challan against the accused petitioners. 3. The said complaint was sent to the concerned Police Station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation. On receiving the complaint, Police registered a case against the accused-petitioners for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and started investigation. 4. On completion of investigation, the police filed challan against the accused petitioners. Thereafter, the charges of the case were framed by the trial court against the accused petitioners, who denied the charges and claimed trial. 5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses. Thereafter, statements of the accused petitioners were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. 6. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 06.08.2001 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner for the offences as mentioned in the judgment itself. 7. Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which came to be decided vide judgment dated 08.07.2003 and the appellate court modified the conviction and sentence of the petitioners as awarded by the trial court, details of which are mentioned hereinabove. Hence this revision petition. 8. During the pendency of the revision petition, the petitioner No.2 Alpu Ram expired and the revision qua him was dismissed as abated by this Court vide order dated 14.07.2017. 9. So far as, petitioner No.1 Babu Lal is concerned, counsel does not challenge the finding of conviction but it is submitted that the occurrence relates back to year 1989 and he has so far suffered a sentence of fifteen days, out of total sentence of two years’ S.I. In such circumstances, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner No.1 for the offences mentioned above may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 10. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioners. The learned PP submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused petitioners nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case. 11. I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgments passed by the courts below regarding conviction of the accused-petitioners. 12. The learned PP submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused petitioners nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case. 11. I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgments passed by the courts below regarding conviction of the accused-petitioners. 12. It is not disputed that the occurrence has taken place in the year 1989 and the accused-petitioner No.1 has so far undergone a period of fifteen days incarceration, out of total sentence of two years’ S.I., and so also suffered the mental agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the accused-petitioner No.1 has remained behind the bars for considerable time, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the appellate court for offences under Sections 420, 471, 467/120B, 468/120B IPC, is reduced to the period already undergone by them. 13. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the petitioner No.1’s conviction & sentence for offences under Sections 420, 471, 467/120B, 468/120B IPC, the sentence awarded to him for aforesaid offences is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The amount of fine is hereby maintained. Three months’ time is granted to deposit the fine before the trial court. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner No.1 shall undergo one month’s simple imprisonment. The fine amount, if any, already deposited by the petitioner No.1 shall be adjusted. The petitioner No.1 is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged. 14. The record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.