Partly allowed

Manoj S/O Sadhuram, by Caste Khatik v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC8 Mar 2019CRLR/20/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the revision petition partly. While upholding the conviction for theft under Section 379 IPC for recovery of 20kg wire, the Court reduced the rigorous imprisonment to the period already undergone due to the prolonged delay and short custody, directing the petitioner to deposit the fine for liberty.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to the period already undergone; petitioner directed to deposit fine to be set at liberty.

Manoj S/O Sadhuram, by Caste Khatik Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Revision No. 20/2019

¶3

Manoj S/o Sadhuram, By Caste Khatik, R/o Kagroli, Ps Baddha, District Bhiwani, Haryana. Presently R/o Ghata Bus Stand, Ps Thanagazi, District Alwar. (Presently Confined In District Jail, Alwar)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant Sharma, PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶10

Order

¶11

08/03/2019

¶12

Petitioner has preferred this revision petition aggrieved by judgment and order dated 20.06.2011 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Thanagaji, District Alwar whereby petitioner has been convicted for offence under Section 379 and has been sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-, on non payment to further undergo one month rigorous imprisonment and against judgment and order dated 09.06.2017 whereby Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Alwar dismissed the appeal.

¶13

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner does not press the revision on merits. The only contention is that about 20kg wire were recovered from the petitioner. Petitioner has no criminal antecedents. The matter pertain to year, 2005. Petitioner has remained in custody for six months and seven days.

¶14

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the revision petition.

¶15

(2 of 2)

¶16

[CRLR-20/2019]

¶17

I have considered the contention.

¶18

Taking note of the fact that 20kg of wire were recovered from the petitioner. Petitioner has undergone the agony of trial for more than 13 years and has remained in custody for six months and seven days, I do not find any justification in now directing the petitioner to suffer further imprisonment, hence, the revision petition deserves to be partly allowed.

¶19

The revision petition is partly allowed. While upholding the judgment of conviction passed by the Court below, sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone. Petitioner however would be required to deposit the fine amount and on deposition of the fine, petitioner be set at liberty if not wanted in any other case. Record of the Court below be returned.

¶20

Application for suspension of sentence stands disposed.

¶21

Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court by fax/email today itself with a direction to serve a photostat copy of the same to the appellant/s and an additional copy of this order be also sent to the concerned Court by ordinary process.

¶22

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶23

Arun/28

Manoj S/O Sadhuram, by Caste Khatik v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj S/O Sadhuram, by Caste Khatik v. State of Rajasthan

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

Davesh@Daveshwar @ Raj S/O Rameshchand Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Yusuf Khan S/O Shri Kamruddin B/C Musalman Vs State of Rajasthan

Rahul Grover S/O Late Shri Jagmohan Grover B/C Khatri Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Balu Singh S/O Uday Singh B/C Sondhya Rajput Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rodulal S/O Gokul Prasad B/C Lodha Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Shanu Painter @ Mohammad Shakire S/O Habeeb Mohammad B/C Musalman Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp