Skip to content


Babu Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Criminal Revision No. 314 of 1978
Judge
Reported in1985(2)WLN46
AppellantBabu Lal
RespondentState of Rajasthan
DispositionPetition desmissed
Excerpt:
.....is of 1979, it would be futile to take any stringent action in the matter and pass substantive sentence.;revision dismissed - 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 ..........fodder (sale of stock and prohibition of export) order, 1969 and sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of rs. 2,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment.3. an appeal was preferred against this judgment and the learned sessions judge while upholding the conviction, reduced the sentence. he set-aside the substantive sentence and maintained the punishment of fine. against this order the present revision petition has been preferred.4. at the time of admission, a notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause why the substantive sentence of imprisonment be not enhanced.5. i have carefully gone through the record of the case and also perused the judgments of the lower courts. on facts the case has been established and.....
Judgment:

Gopal Kishan Sharma, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment of Sessions Judge, Jhunjunu, dated 8-5-1978 upholding the conviction of the petitioner under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act.

2. The petitioner was prosecuted for the offence under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu, who after trial, found the petitioner guilty of the offence for contravention of the Rajasthan Cattle Fodder (Sale of Stock and Prohibition of Export) Order, 1969 and sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment.

3. An appeal was preferred against this Judgment and the learned Sessions Judge while upholding the conviction, reduced the sentence. He set-aside the substantive sentence and maintained the punishment of fine. Against this order the present revision petition has been preferred.

4. At the time of admission, a notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause why the substantive sentence of imprisonment be not enhanced.

5. I have carefully gone through the record of the case and also perused the judgments of the lower courts. On facts the case has been established and as there is concurrent finding of fact by both the lower courts, I do not find proper to interfere with the finding. So far as the punishment of the petitioner is concerned, the fine imposed to him is sufficient. The seized fodder has already been forfeited and I see no reason to enhance the punishment and sentence him to substantive imprisonment. As the incident is of 1970, it would be futile to take any stringent action in the matter and pass substantive sentence. Therefore, the notice for enhancement of punishment is discharged and the revision petition having no force is hereby dismissed.


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