Partly allowed

Prem Singh @ Titar Son of Nahar Singh, by Caste Meena v. State of Rajasthan, through P.P.

Rajasthan HC16 Nov 2018CRLR/1450/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the revision petition in part, upholding the conviction for theft under Section 411 IPC but reducing the sentence to the period already undergone, noting the petitioner was 21 and in custody for over four months of the six-month term.

What did the court decide?

Criminal revision petition partly allowed; sentence reduced to period already undergone; fine punishment reduced to one month imprisonment on non-payment.

Prem Singh @ Titar Son of Nahar Singh, by… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1450/2018

¶3

Prem Singh @ Titar Son Of Nahar Singh, By Caste Meena, Resident Of Village Khirkhidi, Police Station Sapotara, District Karauli (Raj.) (At Present In District Jail, Karauli)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p., Rajasthan

¶7

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahender Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.R. Singh Rathore, PP

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶9

Judgment / Order

¶10

16/11/2018

¶11

Petitioner has preferred this revision petition aggrieved by judgment and order dated 05.05.2018 passed by Additional Magistrate, Karauli, whereby petitioner has been convicted for offence under Section 411 IPC and has been sentenced to one year Rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/-, on nonpayment of fine, petitioner to further undergo one month’s rigorous imprisonment and against judgment and order dated 03.08.2018 passed by Sessions Judge, Karauli, whereby appeal preferred by the petitioner was partly allowed while upholding the judgment of conviction under Section 411 IPC. Sentence has been reduced to the period of six months. Punishment with regard to fine has also been reduced from two months to one month.

¶12

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that at the time of the alleged offence, petitioner was aged twenty one years. He

¶13

(2 of 2)

¶14

[CRLR-1450/2018]

¶15

has faced trial for a period of six years. It is also contended that out of the period of six months, petitioner has already remained in custody for more than four months. Sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. It is also contended that criminal antecedents pointed out pertains to to the same motorcycle for which petitioner has been convicted under Section 411 IPC.

¶16

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the revision petition.

¶17

I have considered the contentions.

¶18

Taking note of the fact that the petitioner was aged twenty one years on the date of the alleged offence and he has remained in custody for a period of more than four months, I deem it proper to partly allow the revision petition.

¶19

The criminal revision petition is, accordingly, partly allowed. Application for suspension of sentence stands disposed.

¶20

While upholding the judgment of conviction passed by the Courts below, I deem it proper to reduce the period of sentence to the period already undergone by the petitioner.

¶21

The order pertaining fine would, however remain the same and on non-payment of fine, petitioner has to undergo imprisonment provided therein.

¶22

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶23

Arti/21

Prem Singh @ Titar Son of Nahar Singh, by Caste Meena v. State of Rajasthan, through P.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Singh @ Titar Son of Nahar Singh, by Caste Meena v. State of Rajasthan, through P.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kaptan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Smt Sweta Tripathi Vs Punit Dutta

Kailash Chand Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Rajesh Kanwadia Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Bhanwarlal S/O Late Shri Chunnilal Vs State of Rajasthan

Vakila S/O Mungaram B/C Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp