Chhoteylal Vs. the State of Rajasthan - Court Judgment
|Court||Rajasthan High Court|
|Case Number||S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 1874|
|Judge|| V.P. Tyagi, J.|
|Respondent||The State of Rajasthan|
.....of 22 years & weak financial condition--no ground for reduction of substantive sentence--fine reduced. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or..........this appeal of chhoteylal has been admitted by this court only on the question of the adequacy of sentence awarded to him.2. the appellant who was working as extra departmental delivery agent at the post office, hindoli, was entrusted with money order no. 1552 of rs. 13 70 to be delivered to one ghasilal, but instead of delivering the amount of the money order to the addressee he forged the signatures of ghasilal as well as of one dharamchand attesting witness and misappropriated the amount. he has been convicted by the learned trial judge for offences under sections 409 and 467 indian penal code and awarded one years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of rs. 300/- under the first count & one year's rigorous imprisonment & a fine of rs. 500/- under the second count.3. learned counsel.....
V.P. Tyagi, J.
1. This appeal of Chhoteylal has been admitted by this Court only on the question of the adequacy of sentence awarded to him.
2. The appellant who was working as Extra Departmental Delivery Agent at the Post Office, Hindoli, was entrusted with money order No. 1552 of Rs. 13 70 to be delivered to one Ghasilal, but instead of delivering the amount of the money order to the addressee he forged the signatures of Ghasilal as well as of one Dharamchand attesting witness and misappropriated the amount. He has been convicted by the learned trial Judge for offences Under Sections 409 and 467 Indian Penal Code and awarded one years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/- under the first count & one year's rigorous imprisonment & a fine of Rs. 500/- under the second count.
3. learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant argues that the sentence awarded to the appellant is excessive because the appellant is hardly a boy of 22. As regards fine, it is contended that he is not in a position to pay the fine and, therefore, looking to his financial condition the sentence of fine may be set aside.
4. I have gone through the judgment and I find that the appellant does not deserve any reduction of substantive sentence. Both the substantive sentences are, however, ordered to run concurrently and that is sufficient relief that has already been given to him in the matter of substantive sentence. However, I feel that the fine imposed by the trial court is excessive. The sentence of fine under both the counts is, therefore, reduced to Rs. 50/- each; in default the appellant shall undergo fifteen days' rigorous imprisonment for each default. The sentence awarded in case No. 15 of 1973 of which Appeal No. 16 of 1974 is pending shall run concurrently with the sentence passed in this appeal.
5. The appeal is, therefore, partly allowed as observed above.