Skip to content


Sawai Ram and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Criminal Revision No. 249 of 1972
Judge
Reported in1976WLN(UC)430
AppellantSawai Ram and anr.
RespondentState of Rajasthan
Cases ReferredState v. Dhanpat
Excerpt:
.....on the body of balu and sukhdeo and that the accused are not habitual offenders, that during this period no other offence has been alleged to have been formatted by them looking to all these facts, and that the petitioners have already undergone 9 days' imprisonment, it would be very harsh to seed them to jail or to inflect fine as they are very poor persona and cannot pay fine. one thousand) and a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of munsif and judicial magistrate bhilwara to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year and to appear and receive sentence wherever and whenver he is called upon to do so......appear and receive sentence wherever and whenver he is called upon to do so. two months' time has been prayed for by the earned counsel for furnishing the personal and surety bonds. the time prayed for is grafted. the revision petition is disposed of accordingly.
Judgment:

R.L. Gupta, J.

1. Sawal Singh and Ram Prasad petitioners have preferred this revision against the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara on 20.4.1972 in Cr. appeal No. 22 of 1972. Convicting each of the petitioners under Sections 147, and 448 and 313 IPC and sentencing them to undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment on each count and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has urged that if he enters In to the question of merits of the prosecution case be would submit that there is no substance in the prosecution case at all. But at this stage instead of arguing on the merits he bad only prayed that the alleged occurrence being of 27.7.1967 and that the alleged scuffle took place on very trifle matter, the injuries received are very sin pie mostly abrasions on the body of Balu and Sukhdeo and that the accused are not habitual offenders, that during this period no other offence has been alleged to have been formatted by them looking to all these facts, and that the petitioners have already undergone 9 days' imprisonment, it would be very harsh to seed them to jail or to inflect fine as they are very poor persona and cannot pay fine. He has, therefore, prayed that the accused petitioners be given the benefit of provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. He hag in this connection relied upon Ghanshyam Das v. Municipal Corporation if Delhi : AIR1975SC845 which is a case under the provisions of Food Adulteration Act and the sentence was must in that case but even then looking to the fact that the occurrence was of the year 1965 it was not proper to send the accused to jail. He has also relied upon State v. Dhanpat RLW 1966 122 in which the offence was under Section 325 IPC but looking to the circumstances after such a long interval of time the learned Judge of this Court did not propose to send the respondent to Jail as the sentence of imprisonment was obligatory under Section 325 IPC he sentenced the respondent till the rising of the court in addition to a fine of Rs. 30/-. The learned Public Projector has no objection if a lenient in the matter of punishment is taken in view of the aforesaid authorities.

3. In the result the conviction of the petitioners as passed by the learned Sessions Judge is maintained but instead of sending them to jail the petitioners are hereby given the benefit of the provisions or Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Each of them shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1000/- (Rs. one thousand) and a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Bhilwara to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year and to appear and receive sentence wherever and whenver he is called upon to do so. Two months' time has been prayed for by the earned Counsel for furnishing the personal and surety bonds. The time prayed for is grafted. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //