Allowed

Govind Singh v. State

Rajasthan HC21 Nov 2022CRLA/264/1993

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant, in a criminal appeal pending for over 30 years with no appearance by him earlier, was granted benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and released after posting bail bonds, despite an earlier Apex Court order setting aside a limited order allowing such relief.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; appellant released on probation under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, upon furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties; liability to pay Rs. 25,000 costs.

Govind Singh Vs State — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 264/1993

Govind Singh

----Appellant

Versus

State

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pradeep Shah For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sharwan Bishnoi, PP

¶9

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶10

Order

¶11

21/11/2022

¶12

This Court had earlier taken up this appeal alongwith certain other appeals, which were pending before this Court for almost 30 years. Despite many rounds of matter being called, none appeared for the appellant and, therefore, this Court thought it appropriate to hear the case with the assistance of Amicus Curiae and accordingly Mr. A.S. Rathore, Advocate was given the responsibility.

¶13

After perusing complete record, advocate representing appellant made a limited prayer that the incident happened in 1988, which is about 34 years old and the appeal is pending since 1993, which is about 30 years old, therefore, in the interest of justice he made a limited submission that the sentence awarded to the appellant may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by him.

¶14

This Court while relying upon the order of Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 allowed

¶15

(2 of 5)

¶16

[CRLA-264/1993]

¶17

the appeal to the extent sought by the counsel and while maintaining conviction of appellant for the offence under Sections 426 & 201 IPC, the sentence awarded to appellant was reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶18

Against the order dated 06.05.2022 Criminal Appeal No.1843 of 2022 (arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.7196 of 2022 came to be filed before Honble Apex Court and the Honble Apex Court was pleased to grant leave on the following terms :-

¶19

“Leave granted.

¶20

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record, without elaboration on any other aspect of the matter, we are inclined to set aside the order impugned and to restore S.B. Criminal Appeal No.264/1993 for consideration afresh by the High Court.

¶21

It is for the reason that the appellant seeks to question his conviction but it appears that because of nobody appearing on his behalf, the High Court took the services of a legal aid counsel, who did not argue anything except making a prayer for relaxation in terms of sentence.

¶22

The appellant has a few aspects to urge on the merits of the case and the matter being of a regular appeal, in our view, interest of justice would be served if the appellant is extended an opportunity of hearing by the High Court.

¶23

Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal, bearing S.B. Criminal Appeal No.264/1993 is restored for reconsideration by the High Court in accordance with law.

¶24

The parties through their respective counsel shall stand at notice to appear before the High Court on 21.11.2022. It goes without saying that we have not made any comments on the merits of the case either way.

¶25

The appeal is allowed accordingly.”

¶26

Today, the matter came up for hearing in compliance of the aforesaid order and counsel for the appellant today also urged nothing on merits but made a limited submission that benefit under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 be granted to appellant in addition to the order already passed earlier.

¶27

(3 of 5)

¶28

[CRLA-264/1993]

¶29

This Court in the given circumstance does not have any assistance to go into merits of case, thus, deems it appropriate to allow the appeal in the same terms as prayer for.

¶30

This Court after perusing record, particularly, noting that the incident is of 1988, which is about 34 years old and the appeal is pending since 1993, which is about 30 years old now and the lawyer is not making any submission on merits but seeking benefit of reduction of sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant alongwith benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, deems it appropriate to grant the same. The terms of probation in the given factual and legal matrix are justified.

¶31

Learned Public Prosecutor also looking into very old pendency of the issue fairly submits that Section 4 benefit may be given as the appellant has not committed any act which could debar him from granting benefit, however, he submits that under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 there is a provision of cost, which may be imposed upon the appellant as litigation cost.

¶32

At this juncture counsel for appellant submits that he is prepared to pay cost of proceedings to the tune of Rs.25,000/under Section 5(b) of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Section 5 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 reads thus :-

¶33

5. Power of court to require released offenders to pay

¶34

compensation and costs .—

¶35

(1) The court directing the release of an offender under section 3 or section 4, may, if it thinks fit, make at the same time a further order directing him to pay—

¶36

(a) such compensation as the court thinks reasonable for loss or injury caused to any person by the commission of the offence; and

¶37

(b) such costs of the proceedings as the court thinks reasonable.

¶38

(4 of 5)

¶39

[CRLA-264/1993]

¶40

(2) The amount ordered to be paid under sub-section (1) may be recovered as a fine in accordance with the provisions of sections 386 and 387 of the Code.

¶41

(3) A civil court trying any suit, arising out of the same matter for which the offender is prosecuted, shall take into account any amount paid or recovered as compensation under sub-section (1) in awarding damages”.

¶42

The appeal, thus, is allowed and while maintaining the appellant’s conviction for offence under Sections 426 & 202 of IPC, as recorded by the learned court below in the impugned judgment, this Court interferes only with the sentence part of the said judgment, and directs that the appellant(s) shall be released on probation, under Section 4 of the Act, upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court with a further undertaking that he shall maintain peace and good behaviour for a period of two years and shall not repeat the offence. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.

¶43

The appellant is also given benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 in the given circumstances. The appellant shall be required to pay a cost of Rs.25,000/- in accordance with Section 5(b) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, which shall be submitted before the Deputy Secretary, Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jodhpur within a period of 60 days from today.

¶44

It is needless to say that the appellant shall be entitled for benefits under Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

¶45

(5 of 5)

¶46

[CRLA-264/1993]

¶47

All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.

¶48

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

¶49

70-Sanjay/-

Govind Singh v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govind Singh v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lrs of Mohini Devi W/O Pema Ram Jat Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramesh Kumar Vs Rajasthan of Rajasthan

Lokendra Singh Vs the Secretary, Education Department Secretariat, Jaipur

Smt Leela Vs State

Gyanchand Loonker Vs Mohammad Umar

Pabu Ram Vs Ramesh Chandra