Court dismissed a miscellaneous petition seeking revision on concurrent punishment because separate revision petitions on conviction were already pending, rendering the current petition misconceived.
Miscellaneous petition dismissed as wholly misconceived due to pendency of revision petitions.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1999/2019
Madan Lal Pingoliya S/o Salagram Pingoliya B/c Regar, R/o Regaro Ka Mohalla, Gram Post Lawan, Tehsil And District Dausa.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hanuman Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramesh Choudhary, PP Mr. Rahul Tiwari
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Order
04/11/2020
The present misc. petition has been filed praying for revising the order passed by the concerned Court convicting the petitioner for offence relating to Section 138 of the NI Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that punishment should run concurrently.
Learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that the petitioner has also filed separate revision petition challenging the orders passed in conviction as well as appeal before this
(2 of 2)
[CRLMP-1999/2019]
Court, which are pending. It is also noticed that sentence suspension was conditional with a direction to deposit 50% of the amount, which has not been deposited by the petitioner.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the petition and submits that when the revision petitions are pending, the present misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would not lie.
I have considered the submissions as above.
The prayer made by the petitioner in the present petition relates to the orders passed by the Court below, which are examining before this Court in revisions.
In view thereof, a separate order in the present misc. petition cannot be passed and therefore, this misc. petition is wholly misconceived and would not lie in the vague of pendency of the revision petitions.
The misc. petition is accordingly dismissed.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J
SUNIL SOLANKI /19/3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a miscellaneous petition for revision on concurrent punishment lies when separate revision petitions challenging conviction are pending.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Madan Lal Pingoliya
State Of Rajasthan
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
