Skip to content


Udiya and Ladura Vs. State of Rajasthan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Criminal Jail Revision Nos. 156, 157, 158 and 159 of 1985
Judge
Reported in1985WLN(UC)149
AppellantUdiya and Ladura
RespondentState of Rajasthan
Cases ReferredLadura v. The State. The
Excerpt:
penal code - sections 457 & 380--sentence--substantive sentences to run concurrently--held, prayer is reasonable;he, therefore, prays that this court should in the circumstances of the cases make the substantive sentences of each of the two petitioners under sections 457 and 380 ipc concurrent in all these cases. the contention of the learned amicus curiae appears to be reasonable;revision partly accepted. - - 157/85 it appears that the learned trial court failed to direct substantive sentences under sections 457 and 380 ipc to be concurrent, although, in the other case he had made them concurrent......156/85 and 159/85, the trial court has taken into consideration the fact of the pendency of other criminal cases against the petitioners while awarding them sentences, although there was no charge under section 75 ipc against them and in revision no. 157/85 it appears that the learned trial court failed to direct substantive sentences under sections 457 and 380 ipc to be concurrent, although, in the other case he had made them concurrent. he, therefore, prays that this court should in the circumstances of the cases make the substantive sentences of each of the two petitioners under sections 457 and 380 ipc concurrent in all these cases. the contention of the learned amicus curiae appears to be reasonable and the learned public prosecutor also does not seriously object to this.4. i,.....
Judgment:

K.S. Lodha, J.

1. These four revisions by the two petitioners Udiya and Ladura have bean filed against the orders of the learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi dated 9-10-84 so far as revisions No. 156/85 and 159/85 are concerned and against 13-10-84 and 19-11-84 respectively in revisions No. 157/85 and 158/85. The learned Sessions Judge had dismissed the appeals of the appellants against their convictions and sentences passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Abu Road under Sections 457 and 380 IPC in different cases as detailed below, as barred by time:

----------------------------------------------------------------------Case No. Date of under sentence FineJudgment Section----------------------------------------------------------------------1. 75/82 3-12-1982 457 IPC 1-1/2 year's R.I. 1500/-2. 111/82 24-2-1983 380 IPC 1 year's R.I. 1000/-457 IPC 2 year's R.I. 2000/-380 IPC 1-1/2 year's R.I. 2000/-Ladura v. The State1. 75/82 3-12-1982 457 IPC 1-1/2 year's R.I. 1500/-2. 62/82 28-4-1982 380 IPC 1 year's R.I. 1000/-457 IPC 3 year's R.I. 500/-380 IPC 2-1/2 year's R.I. 500/-2. I have heard the learned Amicus Curiae on half of the petitioners.----------------------------------------------------------------------

The petitioners were also present before me on 9-7-85 and I had heard them and have perused the judgments of the courts below. Two other similar revisions by the petitioner Ladura in two other cases were dismissed by another learned single Judge of this Court by order dated 14-5-85 in Jail Revision No. 127/85 and 131/85--Ladura v. The State. The learned Amicus Curiae urged that so far as the question of limitation is concerned these cases also stand on the same footing and, therefore, he does not find himself in a position to assail the orders of the learned Sessions Judge.

3. He, however, urged that the petitioners have been in jail since 1982 in connection with these different cases. The cases are of the same nature and the properties involved in them are also not of much value and in the judgments which are subject matter of revisions No. 156/85 and 159/85, the trial court has taken into consideration the fact of the pendency of other criminal cases against the petitioners while awarding them sentences, although there was no charge Under Section 75 IPC against them and in revision No. 157/85 it appears that the learned trial court failed to direct substantive sentences under Sections 457 and 380 IPC to be concurrent, although, in the other case he had made them concurrent. He, therefore, prays that this Court should in the circumstances of the cases make the substantive sentences of each of the two petitioners under Sections 457 and 380 IPC concurrent in all these cases. The contention of the learned Amicus Curiae appears to be reasonable and the learned Public Prosecutor also does not seriously object to this.

4. I, therefore, partly accept these revisions and direct that the two substantive sentences awarded to the petitioner Udiya in Criminal Original Case No. 111/82 shall run concurrently, I further direct that these sentences shall also run concurrently with the substantive sentences awarded to Udiya in Criminal Case No. 75/82 dated 3-12-82 by the Judicial Magistrate, Abu Road and the substantive sentences awarded to Ladura in Criminal Case No. 75/82 shall run concurrently with the substantive sentences awarded to him in Criminal Case No. 62/82 by the Judicial Magistrate, Abu Road.


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