Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KANHYA LAL versus STATE

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


KANHYA LAL v STATE - CRLR Case No. 517 of 2005 [2007] RD-RJ 1280 (13 March 2007)

(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

ORDER

S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 517/2005

KANHYA LAL & ANR. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

DATE: 13.03.2007.

HON'BLE MR. K.S. RATHORE, J.

Mr. S.R. Surana for the accused-petitioners.

Mr. B.S. Chhaba, PP for the State.

****

The present criminal revision petition under

Section 397 Cr.P.C. is preferred by the petitioners against the judgment dated 21.02.2005 passed by the

Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Tonk in

Criminal Appeal No. 3/2003 confirming the order dated 28.10.99 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Tonk in

Criminal Case No. 508/92, whereby the petitioners have been convicted under Section 341 IPC with a fine of Rs. 250/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

It is not disputed that the accused- petitioners have already deposited the amount of fine of Rs. 250/- as awarded by both the Courts below and now this revision petition has been preferred by the petitioners against the judgment passed by the Court

(2) below with regard to their conviction under Section 341

IPC and prayed that since the amount of fine has already been deposited by the petitioners, therefore, they may be given the benefit of probation under

Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act as this is the first offence committed by the accused-petitioners and there is no criminal case pending against them other than this.

I have heard rival submissions of the respective parties and have also gone through the impugned judgments.

Since the amount of fine has already been deposited by the accused-petitioners, therefore, I deem it proper to grant the benefit of probation under

Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the accused-petitioners and acquitted them from the offence under Section 341 IPC. So far as sentence of fine is concerned, the impugned order shall remain in force as the same has been executed by the accused-petitioners by way of depositing the same.

With these observations, the revision petition stand disposed of.

(K.S. RATHORE),J. /KKC/


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.