Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM CHARAN versus STATE

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


RAM CHARAN v STATE - CRLR Case No. 360 of 1995 [2007] RD-RJ 290 (12 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

JUDGMENT

S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 360/1995

RAMCHARAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

DATE: 12.01.2007.

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

Mr. Ravi Kasliwal for the accused-petitioner.

Mr. Ashwani Kr. Sharma, P.P. for the State.

****

This revision petition under Section 397 r/w

Section 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment dated 01.07.95 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge

No.1, Kota in Criminal Appeal No. 7/93 and against the judgment dated 18.05.92 passed by the Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate No.2, Kota in Criminal Case No. 447/83.

Vide judgment dated 18.05.92, the accused- petitioner has been convicted under Section 7/16 of the

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for 3 months and this judgment has been confirmed by the Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal of the accused-petitioner vide its judgment dated 01.07.95, against which the present revision petition has been preferred by the accused-petitioner.

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner without arguing on the merits of the case, placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of N. Sukumaran Nair Vs. Food

Inspector, Mavelikara, reported in (1997)9 SCC 101, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that

"The offence took place in the year 1984. The appellant has been awarded six months' simple imprisonment and has also been ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 1000. Under clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, "the appropriate government" is empowered to commute the sentence of simple imprisonment for fine.

We think that this would be an appropriate case for commutation of sentence where almost a decade has gone by. We, therefore, direct the appellant to deposit in the trial court a sum of Rs. 6000 as fine in commutation of the sentence of six months' simple imprisonment within a period of six weeks from today and intimate to the appropriate Government that such fine has been deposited. On deposit of such fine, the

State Government may formalise the matter by passing appropriate order under clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."

Following the ratio decided by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the aforementioned case, a co-ordinate

Bench of this Court in the case of Ramdev Vs. State of

Rajasthan, decided on 28.09.2004 and reported in 2005

WLC(Raj.) UC 201 has also observed that "accused now aged 64, facing trial since 1981- Accused remaining in custody for about 22 days- But for proper legal advice, accused could have even been acquitted- Sentence reduced only up to fine as imposed by trial Court- Fine if not deposited may be deposited within one month."

Similar view has been taken by a co-ordinate

Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Dayal Vs. State of Rajasthan, decided on 03.02.2005 and reported in 2005(2) R.C.C. 1057.

Here in the instant case also, the matter related to a complaint filed in the year 1982 and the trial Court vide its judgment dated 18.05.92 has awarded sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- to the accused-petitioner and he is facing trial since 1982 and had remained in custody for about one month.

I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the accused-petitioner as well as the learned

Public Prosecutor for the State and have also gone through the record and the impugned judgments.

As per the ratio decided by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the aforementioned case of N.

Sukumaran Nair (supra), the present case is also a fit case and would be an appropriate case for commutation of sentence where more than two decades have gone by.

Therefore, the accused-petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand) in the trial Court as fine in commutation of the sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment within a period of six weeks from today and intimate to the appropriate Government that such fine has been deposited. On deposit of such fine, the State

Government may formalise the matter by passing appropriate orders under clause (d) of Section 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

With the aforesaid observations, the present criminal revision petition stands 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.