,
Order dated 27.09.2014 in CRP No. 15/2012 set aside; order of trial court dated 25.11.2011 restored; complainant's petition dismissed.
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.
[2024:RJ-JP:44677]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1211/2014
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Pandey For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN
Order
22/10/2024
[2024:RJ-JP:44677]
[CRLR-1211/2014]
(2 of 5)
[2024:RJ-JP:44677]
[CRLR-1211/2014]
(3 of 5)
of proceeding. After compliance, the matter was closed. Complainant Gajraj has filed a criminal revision petition No.15/2012 and same was decided on 29.10.2013 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City and the revision petition was partially allowed and the ordered to extend benefit of probation on question of sentence was set aside and matter was remitted back to the trial court for fresh hearing on sentence.
[2024:RJ-JP:44677]
[CRLR-1211/2014]
(4 of 5)
matter for consideration afresh. The facts before Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly indicated that there was an allegation under Section 365 IPC and the trial court has already summoned certain witnesses and there was possibility of filing of application under Sections 319 or 216 Cr.P.C. but herein no such ground was raised by the complainant before the revisional court. Moreover, the revisional court has set aside the order of sentence and not conviction. Herein the order of conviction was upheld by the revisional court and complainant has not challenged the order of conviction, thus the order of conviction has attained finality.
[2024:RJ-JP:44677]
[CRLR-1211/2014]
(5 of 5)
if any, stands disposed of.
(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J
PREETI VALECHA /124
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the order of the revisional court setting aside the benefit of probation granted by the trial court can be sustained given the specific grounds for remission.
Whether the principle laid down in Girraj Prasad Meena is applicable when the revisional court sets aside only the order of sentence and upholds the conviction.
Whether there are any criminal antecedents or grounds to set aside the benefit of probation extended to the petitioners.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Girraj Prasad Meena Vs. State of RajasthanDistinguished¶31
Girraj Prasad Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan 2014 (13) SCC 674 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Jai Ram Son Of Hsri Ramji Lal
Balkishan Son Of Shri Jai Ram
Balram Son Of Shri Jai Ram
Rishikesh Son Of Shri Jai Ram
Smt. Khyal Bai Wife Of Jai Ram
State Of Rajasthan
Ashok Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
