High Court allowed S.B. Criminal Appeal and suspended sentence suspension application. Conviction set aside as it was based on a presumption where the note of objection in the charge sheet had not yet been served.
Conviction and suspension order quashed. Objection note to be served on Appellant.
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 Suspension of Sentence Appl No. 1030/2021
in
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1679/2021
Devendra Kumar S/o Shri Anandi Lal, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Teerath, Police Station Keshoraipatan, District Bundi (Rajasthan) (Currently The Appellant is Lodged In District Jail, Bundi)
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. S.S. Hora through V.C. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ganesh Saini, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS
Order
05/01/2022
izkFkhZ&vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls /kkjk 389 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds varxZr izLrqr ltk LFkxu@tekur vkosnu ij nksuksa i{kksa dks lquk x;kA v/khuLFk fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds vkyksP; fu.kZ; ,oa i=koyh ij miyC/k dkuwuh o rF;kRed fLFkfr ij fopkj fd;k x;kA
fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ&vfHk;qDr dk fuosnu gS fd vfHk;qDr dqy 10 o"kZ ds dkjkokl dh vk/kh ltk vFkkZr 5 o"kZ dkjkokl esa O;rhr dj pqdk gSA xokg ih-M-&2 eatwckbZ ¼erdk dh ekrk½ us eq[; ijh{k.k esa erdk ds lkl&llqj vkSj vU; ifjtuksa }kjk ekjihV djus dk izFke
(2 of 3)
[CRLA(SOS)-1030/2021]
pj.k esa vkjksi yxk;k gSA blh izdkj erdk ds firk ifjoknh izseizdk’k ¼xokg ih-M-&1½ us nks"kfl) vfHk;qDr ds ctk; vU; vfHk;qDr dkds llqj enu vkfn ij xaHkhj vkjksi rqyukRed :i ls yxk;s gSaA vU; xokgku ds dFkuksa dh rjQ /;ku vkd"V djrs gq, ;g rdZ fn;k fd okLro esa erdk dh eR;q gks tkus ds dkj.k ifjtuksa us ihfMr gksdj vFkok vU;Fkk izdj.k dh dgkuh dks vyx :i esa izLrqr fd;k gS rFkk vfHk;qDr dks feF;k :i ls fyIr fd;k gSA vUr esa ltk LFkfxr fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA
;ksX; yksd vfHk;kstd us ltk LFkxu vkosnu dk fojks/k fd;kA lquk x;k ,oa leLr rF;ksa ij fopkj fd;k x;kA
pwafd izkFkhZ&vfHk;qDr ikap o"kZ dh ltk Hkqxr pqdk gSA vihy ds fuLrkj.k esa le; yxsxkA vr% izdj.k ds rF;ksa o ifjfLFkfr;ksa] fo}ku vf/koDrk izkFkhZ&vihykFkhZ }kjk ltk LFkxu izkFkZuk i= ds leFkZu esa U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr fd;s x;s rdksZa] izLrqr vihy esa mBk;s x;s dkuwuh eqn~nksa ,oa izkFkhZ&vihykFkhZ dh U;kf;d vfHkj{kk dh vof/k dks /;ku esa j[krs gq,] xq.kkoxq.k ij dksbZ fVIi.kh fd;s fcuk] ;g ltk LFkxu izkFkZuk i= Lohdkj fd;k tkuk mfpr izrhr gksrk gSA
ifj.kker% ;g ltk LFkxu izkFkZuk i= Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS vkSj vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd ;fn izkFkhZ&vihykFkhZ nsosUnz dqekj iq= vkuUnhyky bl U;k;ky; esa fnukad 07-02-2022 dks ,oa rRi'pkr tc Hkh mls vknsf'kr fd;k tkos] viuh mifLFkfr gsrq ,d yk[k :i;s dk ca/ki= ,oa ipkl&ipkl gtkj :i;s dh nks tekursa fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds larks"kizn izLrqr dj rLnhd djok ns rks mls tekur ij fjgk dj fn;k tk, ,oa fo}ku vij ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k] dze&1] cwanh }kjk Lis'ky ls'ku izdj.k la[;k&70@2017 esa ikfjr vk{ksfir fu.kZ;
(3 of 3)
[CRLA(SOS)-1030/2021]
fnukafdr 15-09-2021 ds rgr fn;s x;s n.Mkns'k dk fdz;kUo;u bl vihy ds vfUre fu.kZ; gksus rd LFkfxr j[kk tkosA
(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J
Mittal/24
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Special Judicial Magistrate convicted the appellant solely on the basis of presumption under Section 114 read with Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, despite the note of objecti
Whether conviction in a suspended sentence case when the note of objection remains unserved violates the Directive Prosecution Rule 2017.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Devendra Kumar
State of Rajasthan
Uma Shanker Vyas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
