Dismissed

Pradeep Kumar v. State

Rajasthan HC3 Jan 2020CRLR/1618/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Honble High Court of Rajasthan allowed the revision petition against the rejection of a suspension of sentence application under Section 389 Cr.P.C., holding that given the multiple convictions and strict sentence, the trial court was right. The court directed the appellate court to decide the pending appeal within two months.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; appellate court directed to decide the pending appeal within two months.

Pradeep Kumar Vs State — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1618/2019

¶3

Pradeep Kumar S/o Sh. Moola Ram, Aged About 39 Years, By Caste Mali, Resident Of Bhatkada, Tehsil And District Sirohi (Rajasthan). (At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Jodhpur)

----Petitioner

Versus

State, Through Pp

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. RJ Punia
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Muktiyar Khan PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

¶10

Order

¶11

03/01/2020

¶12

The instant revision petition has been filed against the order dated 15.10.2019 passed by the learned Session Judge Sirohi, whereby the learned Judge has rejected the application for suspension of sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accusedpetitioner has been convicted and sentenced by the learned trial court vide judgment dated 07.08.2019 for offence under Sections 420/120B, 406 IPC. Against the judgment of conviction dated 07.08.2019, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Session Judge, Sirohi which is still pending. He further submits that the appellate court may be directed to suspend the sentence or in alternate he prayed that the appellate court may be directed to decide the appeal expeditiously.

¶14

(2 of 2)

¶15

[CRLR-1618/2019]

¶16

Per contra learned Public Prosecutor submits that as many as 12 cases were registered against the petitioner out of which in nine cases the petitioner was convicted by the learned lower court, therefore the learned court below has rightly rejected the application for suspension of sentence of the petitioner.

¶17

I have considered the arguments advanced before me and perused the impugned order as also gone through the record.

¶18

Taking into consideration the fact that as many as 12 cases were registered against the petitioner, out of which in nine cases the petitioner was convicted by the learned lower court, and in the present case the petitioner was sentenced to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment, I am of the opinion that the learned court below has rightly rejected the application for suspension of sentence.

¶19

Hence, the revision petition is dismissed accordingly. However, the appellate court is directed to decide the appeal of the petitioner pending before it within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶20

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

¶21

35-Anshul/-

Pradeep Kumar v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar v. State

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

Smt Suman and Ors. Vs State and Anr.

Kailash Chandra Vs State

Roopa Ram Vs State

Gangadhar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Dinesh Vs State of Rajasthan

Abhilash Vs State