Partly allowed

Salim v. State

Rajasthan HC23 Oct 2024CRLR/1146/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan, by a single-judge benchled by Justice Narendra Singh Dhaddha, disposed of a criminal revision petition. The court upheld the conviction against the petitioner but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, citing leniency principles. The petitioner was ordered to deposit a fine of Rs. 700/-.

What did the court decide?

Substantive sentence reduced to the period already undergone; petitioner ordered to deposit a fine of Rs. 700/- within two months.

Salim Vs State — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1146/2004

¶3

Salim S/o Mohammed Daraj, R/o Sawa, Police Station Bhadesar, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan (Presently confined in Central Jail, Ajmer).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ishan Khandelwal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, Dy.G.A.

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment

¶10

23/10/2024

¶11

Instant revision petition has been filed on behalf of accused/petitioner under Sections 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved by judgment dated 09.12.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Beawar (Raj.) (for short ‘the appellate court’) in Criminal Appeal No.19/1996, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed, which was filed against the judgment dated 15.10.1996 passed by Civil Judge(Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Vijaynagar in Criminal Case No.121/92, whereby the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

¶12

for the offence under Section 279 IPC to undergo three months’ imprisonment with a fine of Rs.200/-, in default thereof, to further undergo one month’s imprisonment;

¶13

(2 of 4) [CRLR-1146/2004]

¶14

for the offence under Section 304-A IPC, to undergo one year imprisonment with a fine of Rs.400/-, in default thereof, to further undergo two months’ imprisonment

¶15

and for the offence under Section 88/133 of Motor Vehicle Act, to undergo one month imprisonment with a fine of Rs.100/in default thereof, to further undergo seven days’ imprisonment.

¶16

All the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not want to assail the conviction of the petitioner on merits and confines his arguments with the alternative prayer of reduction of sentence awarded by the trial court to the period already undergone by him. So, he has prayed that this petition filed by the petitioner be partly allowed and the sentence awarded to the petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶18

On the other hand, learned Dy.G.A. appearing for the State, has submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgments whatsoever and, therefore, the same do not call for any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court. However, he did not seriously dispute the submission regarding reduction of sentence.

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the rival parties at length. Perused the impugned judgments and the entire record of the case.

¶20

Since the present revision petition against conviction is not pressed and after perusing the material, nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court. This Court does not

¶21

(3 of 4) [CRLR-1146/2004]

¶22

wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained.

¶23

So far as the question of quantum of sentence is concerned, the petitioner has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of about 32 years and he remained incarcerated for some time after passing the judgment, hence, the case of the petitioner deserves to be dealt with leniency. Thus, guided by the judicial pronouncements made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra , (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of West Bengal , (1998) 9 SCC 678 and considering the facts & circumstances of the case and the fact that he faced financial hardship and he had to go through mental agony, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met, if sentence imposed upon the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶24

Looking to the facts & circumstances of the present case & considering the submissions made at bar, more particularly the long pendency of the case & the old date of alleged incident as well as keeping in mind the precedent laws (supra), the revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the alleged offences, the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Impugned judgments stand modified, as indicated above.

¶25

However, the petitioner shall deposit the fine amount of Rs.700/- as levied by the trial court vide judgment dated 15.10.1996 and affirmed by the Appellate Court vide judgment

¶26

[CRLR-1146/2004]

¶27

(4 of 4)

¶28

dated 09.12.2004 with the learned trial court, if not already deposited, within two months from today, failing which the said amount shall be recovered in terms of Section 461 B.N.S.S. by concerned District Collector as a land revenue. The petitioner is on bail. He need not to surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled.

¶29

Record be sent to the trial court.

¶30

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶31

Gourav/12

Salim v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salim 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

Babulal Son of Shri Parbhati, Vs State of Rajasthan

Dinesh Chand S/O Hem Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Santosh Murlidhar Nikam S/O Shri Murlidhar Nikam, Vs State of Rajasthan

Budhi Prakash S/O Late Shri Bajrang Lal Pachwaria, Vs State of Rajasthan

Sita Ram Singh Vs State

Badri Lal Vs State