In a criminal revision, the High Court reduced the appellant's sentence from one year to one month under Section 471 IPC. Considering the case was 33 years old and the accused had already served one month, the court remanded records to ensure proper execution of the resentence.
Sentence reduced to one month rigorous imprisonment; records remanded to trial court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Criminal revision petition no.365/98 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR.
O R D E R
SURENDRA KUMAR V/S STATE OF RAJASTHAN
| S.B.Criminal Revision Petition |
|---|
| No.365/1998 under Section |
| 397/401 CR.PC against the |
| judgment dated 30.6.1998 |
| passed by the Sessions Judge, |
| Sriganganagar in Criminal Appeal |
| No.107/1997. |
DATE OF ORDER
12.04.2014
PRESENT HON'BLE MR. ATUL KUMAR JAIN ,J
Mr.MK Garg, for the petitioner Mr.JP Bhardwaj, PP for the State
BY THE COURT
Accused petitioner Surendra Kumar Arora was convicted and sentenced in Regular Criminal Case No. 370/93 by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar under Section 471 IPC on 5.8.1997 and his Appeal No. 107/97 was decided by the Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar on 30.6.1998 whereby his conviction and sentence was upheld and
Criminal revision petition no.365/98 2
accordingly the accused petitioner Surendra Kumar has to suffer one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 471 IPC.
It has been argued on behalf of the accused petitioner in this criminal revision petition that he has already suffered one month imprisonment in this case during trial/appeal/revision and so it has been submitted on behalf of the accused petitioner that he wants not to challenge his conviction. His prayer is limited only to the extent of letting him on the ground of undergone sentence. The learned Public Prosecutor has not seriously opposed the prayer of the accused petitioner.
In the aforesaid background, I have perused the record of the case and I have heard both sides. A charge against the accused petitioner was that he had been filed in the year 1989 in Secondary School Examination, 1991 which was going to be conducted by the Board of Rajasthan Secondary Education, Ajmer and so for this purpose he had submitted a forged mark-sheet of Secondary School Examination in which
Criminal revision petition no.365/98 3
he was shown as “pass candidate”. It has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. accused had told the courts below that he had received the forged mark-sheet for a consideration of Rs. 500/-.
In the circumstances of the case, looking to the fact that the matter is now thirty-three (33) years old, some liberal view may be taken in this matter. In the circumstances of the case, the sentence of accused petitioner Surendra Kumar Arora is hereby reduced to a period of one month only. The revision petition is hereby partly accepted. Record of the courts below be sent back with a copy of this judgment within seven days. Bail bonds of accused petitioner taken on the time of suspension of sentence should also be sent back to the trial court for procuring the attendance of accused petitioner, if need arises. If accused has already suffered one months sentence then he need not be taken back in custody but if the period of sentence suffered by him is less than one month then he should be made to suffer the remaining sentence by the trial court as per this judgment.
Criminal revision petition no.365/98 4
It is hereby clarified that during the pendency of this revision petition, the sentence of accused petitioner was suspended by this Court on 4.7.1998 and was released from jail on 6.7.1998 by the Superintendent District Jail, Sriganganagar in this case. Record of courts below be sent back with a copy of this judgment within three days.
[ATUL KUMAR JAIN], J.
arti
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the accused petitioner is entitled to have his sentence reduced based on the time already served and the age of the case.
Whether the trial court's records should be sent back to adjust the sentence execution.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Surendra Kumar Arora
State of Rajasthan
Atul Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
