Disposed

Abdul Rahaman Gori v. State

Rajasthan HC18 Oct 2023CRLR/171/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition regarding conviction under Sections 409 and 477-A IPC was disposed of. Upon counsel's submission that the sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone under the Probation of Offenders Act due to a twenty-year lapse, the court held that no purpose would be served by such an order.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner.

Abdul Rahaman Gori Vs State — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 171/2004

¶3

Abdul Rahaman Gori S/o Azizur Rahaman, R/o Aklera Distt Jhalawar (Raj) (Accused petition is in district jail Jhalawar)

----Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ali Mohd. Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Babu Lal Nasuna, PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR

¶10

Order

¶11

18/10/2023

¶12

The petitioner was convicted by the trial court under Section 409 and 477-A of IPC wherein two years rigorous imprisonment was awarded for both the offences besides fine of Rs. 10,000/and 500/-respectively and sentence of three months simple imprisonment and one month simple imprisonment respectively on default of payment of fine.

¶13

The judgment of the trial court dated 08.03.2000 passed in criminal case No. 306/1991 was challenged in criminal appeal no. 23/2003 and the appeal was partly allowed on 23.01.2004 and sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment was awarded for the offences under Section 408 and 477A IPC besides fine of Rs. 10,000/- and 500/-respectively and sentence of three months simple imprisonment and one month simple imprisonment respectively on default of payment of fine.

¶14

[CRLR-171/2004]

¶15

(2 of 2)

¶16

After some arguments learned counsel for the petitioner does not want to challenge the correctness of the conviction as both the courts below have recorded concurrent finding of fact which is not perverse one.

¶17

However on the question of sentence, learned counsel contends that the courts below have not considered that there was no previous conviction against the petitioner, as such the petitioner should have been treated under different provisions of The Probation of Offenders Act.

¶18

After lapse of such long period of twenty years, no purpose would be served by making any order under Probation of Offenders Act, hence the sentence stands reduced to the period already undergone.

¶19

Accordingly, instant revision petition stands disposed of.

¶20

(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J

¶21

ashu /8

Abdul Rahaman Gori v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Rahaman Gori v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharmveer Singh S/O Shri Heera Lal Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Ikbal Ahmad and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Mohmmad Amin and Anr. Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Hasmuddeen S/O Shri Rajjuddin Vs State of Rajasthan

Nanhe Khan Vs State

Anita Vaushnav Vs Suresh Kumar and Ors.