Partly allowed

Ramavtar v. State

Rajasthan HC20 Dec 2022CRLA/465/1985

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a special criminal appeal, the High Court upheld the appellant's conviction for cheating and criminal conspiracy set under the IPC. The Court granted the benefit of probation, setting aside the original sentence. The liable appellant was directed to furnish a bond with a surety and deposit costs to secure release.

What did the court decide?

Conviction upheld; original sentence set aside; benefit of probation granted under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

Ramavtar Vs State — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 465/1985

¶3

Ramavtar S/o Shri Maluram Soni, R/o Village Chhota Bharanda, P. S. Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu

----Appellant

Versus

State

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sankalp Sogani, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Rajeev Surana, Senior Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shyam Singh Yadav, Spl.P.P.

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

¶10

Order

¶11

ORDER RESERVED ON :: 08.12.2022 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON :: 20.12.2022

¶12

Appellant has filed this appeal challenging the judgment & order dated 30.09.1985 passed by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Rajasthan, Jaipur in Special Criminal Case No.13/1976, whereby appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence(s) punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 420 read with Section 511 & 468 IPC. The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant reads as under:-

¶13

Under Section 120-B IPC-	Two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/- in default of fine six months rigorous imprisonment
Under Section 420 IPC	Two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/- in default of fine six months rigorous imprisonment
Under Section 420 read with Section 511 IPC	One year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- in default of fine three months rigorous imprisonment

¶14

(2 of 4)

¶15

[CRLA-465/1985]

¶16

Under Section 468 IPC

¶17

Two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- in default of fine three months rigorous imprisonment

¶18

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

¶19

As per the story of the prosecution, Shri Ramswaroop Tailor, who was Sub-Post Master in Sub-Post Office, Gudhagaur Ji, District Jhunjhunu, in the year 1975 he sent certain money orders at the instance to get money. Appellant and co-accused Shri Ramswaroop Tailor had hatched a conspiracy and sent the money orders on fake names on various places where appellant got money.

¶20

After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant.

¶21

After hearing the arguments, charges were framed against the appellant under Sections 120-B, 420, 420/511 and 468 IPC.

¶22

Accused appellant denied the charges levelled against him and preferred the trial.

¶23

In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 69 witnesses. Appellant was examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prayed that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in this case. Appellant examined D.W.-1 Matadeen in his defence.

¶24

Learned trial Court convicted the appellant as above mentioned charges. Hence, the present appeal filed by the appellant.

¶25

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant does not want to challenge the conviction of the learned trial Court. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant is

¶26

(3 of 4) [CRLA-465/1985]

¶27

facing trauma of trial since 1976. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant has no previous conviction against him. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that as a mercy petition, benefit of probation may be given to the appellant.

¶28

Learned Special Public Prosecutor has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order of the learned trial Court. Learned Special Public Prosecutor further submitted that the appellant and co-accused had created the fake money orders and taken the Government money by way of fake money orders. So, appeal be dismissed.

¶29

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Special Public Prosecutor.

¶30

It is an admitted position that the appellant is facing trauma of trial since 1976. He has no criminal antecedents. So, in the interest of Justice, I deem it fit to grant the benefit of probation to the appellant.

¶31

Accordingly, order of the conviction against the appellant passed by learned trial Court is upheld and sentence passed against the appellant is set-aside.

¶32

Appellant is directed to submit the bail-bond of Rs.5,000/- under Section 4 of The Probation Of Offenders Act, 1958 for good behaviour for one year before the learned trial Court. Appellant is also directed to deposit Rs. 10,000/- as a cost of proceeding before the learned trial Court.

¶33

Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

¶34

(4 of 4)

¶35

[CRLA-465/1985]

¶36

In view of the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C., appellant namely Ramavtar S/o Shri Maluram Soni is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, and a surety in the like amount, before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months, with stipulation that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against the judgment or on grant of leave, the appellant aforesaid, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.

¶37

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶38

Gourav/48

Ramavtar v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramavtar 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

Tinku Mali Son of Ramchandra Mali Vs State of Rajasthan

Chanua @ Chandrabhan S/O Shivlal @ Pujri Vs State of Rajasthan

Pitam Son of Harmukh Vs State of Rajasthan

Harisingh Son of Shri Bhanwar Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Jeevan Singh S/O Bhom Singh Rawat Vs State of Rajasthan

Deepak Tulsani Son of Shri Jamnadas Tulsani Vs State of Rajasthan