Partly allowed

Jameel Ahm,Ed v. State

Rajasthan HC7 May 2013CRLA/1723/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court maintained the trial court's conviction for offences under Sections 395/120B and 458 IPC. It allowed the appeal on sentencing, directing the release of the appellant as his term had already been served in judicial custody for over seven years.

What did the court decide?

The conviction was maintained. The substantive sentence was reduced to the period already undergone, and the appellant was directed to be released forthwith.

Jameel Ahm,Ed Vs State — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶3

JUDGMENT

¶4

SB Criminal Appeal No. 1723/2007 (Jameel Ahmed Versus State of Rajasthan)

¶5

:: 7^th May, 2013

¶6

:: Date of Judgment 7^th May, 2013 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶7

Mr. Sanjay Sharma, for the accused appellant Mr. Pradeep Shrimal, P.P. for the State

¶8

This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 22^nd August, 2007 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Jaipur City Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 15/2004, whereby the learned trial court convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Sectio 395 readwith Section 120 B IPC- 10 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo for six months' simple imprisonment imprisonment; and for the offence under Section 458 IPC – 14 years' simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/-; in default of payment fo fine, to further undergo for six months' simple imprisonment respecitvely.

¶9

Since learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the order of conviction of appellant passed by the learned trial court, therefore, it is not necessary to refer the facts and evidence of the case in detail.

¶10

However, on consideration of the evidence available on record, I am of the view that the trial court has rightly convicted the accused appellant and finding of the trial court about conviction of the appellant does not

¶11

¶12

call for any interference by this Court. Therefore, the judgment passed by the trial court with regrad to conviction of the appellant is hereby mainained and the appeal to that extent is dismissed.

¶13

So far as reducing of sentence of imprisonment of the accused appellant is concerned, it is stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is in judicial custody since the last more than 7 years. He has cited a judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Kamil @ Rashid Hussain Versus State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1623/2007; decided on 15.9.2011), whereby the co-accused Kamil @ Rashid Hussain has been released on the period undergone by him. He has further contended that co-accused Kamil had been charged with the additional offence i.e. Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, whereas the present accused appellant has not been charged with the aforesaid offence. Hence, he has requested to this Court that the same treatment, as has been given to the coaccused Kamil @ Rashid Hussain, be given to the present accused appellant.

¶14

Learned counsel appearing for the State has not opposed the same.

¶15

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and caefully perused the relevant material on record.

¶16

Looking to the age of the accused appellant whch is nearing about 43 years and the fact that he is a married person, ends of justice would be met if the substantive sentence imposed upon the appellant for the offence under Section 395/120B and 458 IPC, as mentioned above, is reduced to the imprisonment already undergone by him. Hence, ordered accordingly.

¶17

The concerned jail authorities are directed to

¶18

¶19

release the appellant on the period already undergone by him forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.

¶20

The appeal is partly allowed, as indicated hereinabove.

¶21

(Mahesh Chandra Sharma), J.

¶22

¶23

All corrections made in the judgment / order have been incorporated in the judgment / order being E-mailed.

¶24

Dilip Khandelwal PA

Jameel Ahm,Ed v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jameel Ahm,Ed v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madan Lal Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

State Vs Intjaar and Ors.

Forulal Urf Foru Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp.

Parvez Khan Vs State

Mubeen and Anr. Vs State

Hem Raj Vs State