Partly allowed

Nand Kishore and Anr. v. State

Rajasthan HC24 May 2024CRLR/431/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision against conviction for forgery. Petitioner No. 1 abated due to death. Regarding Petitioner No. 2, court reduced sentence to period already undergone citing long delay since 1985 and mental agony, while maintaining conviction and fine.

What did the court decide?

Sentence for Sec. 467, 468, 120B IPC reduced to period already undergone. Fine maintained. Petitioner on bail discharged.

Nand Kishore and Anr. Vs State — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:23777]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 431/2004

¶4

Nand Kishore S/o Ram Gopal, B/c Acharaj, Aged 52 years, R/o Kadi Sehna, Tehsil Shahpura, District Bhilwara (Raj.)

¶5

Ram Gopal S/o Shri Champalal JI, B/c Acharaj, Aged 52 years, R/o Kadi Sehna, Tehsil Shahpura, District Bhilwara (Raj.)

----Petitioners

Versus

State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. AR Malkani For Respondent(s) : Mr. AR Choudhary, PP

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

¶12

Judgment

¶13

24/05/2024

¶14

Instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment dated 17.06.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gulabpura Camp Shahpura, District Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellate court’) in Criminal Appeal No.81/2000 by which the appellate court dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and upheld the judgment dated 30.05.1998 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahpura, in Cr. Case No.422/1985, whereby, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the petitioners as under :

¶15

S.No.	Offence	Sentence	Fine	Sentence in default of fine
1.	Sec.467 IPC	3 years & 6 months SI	Rs.500/-	3 months SI
2.	Sec. 468 IPC	1year SI	Rs.400/-	1 month SI

(2 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:23777]

[CRLR-431/2004]

Sec.120B IPC 1 year SI Rs.250/1 month SI

¶20

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

¶21

Brief facts of the case are that on 17.05.1985, complainant Smt. Kamla filed a complaint before learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahpura to the effect that she was having an agricultural land at Village Kadi Sehna, which was transferred in her favour by her mother Smt. Aijan by way of a gift-deed. The complainant alleged that the accused persons with the intention to transfer the agricultural land in their names, fraudulently took the said gift-deed from the complainant and also took the thumb impressions of her mother Smt. Aijan on blank papers. The complainant prayed that necessary actions be taken against the accused-persons. The learned Magistrate sent the said complaint to Police Station Pander for investigation. Upon which, Police registered a case against the accused-persons for offence under Sections 420, 467 IPC and started investigation.

¶22

On completion of investigation, the police filed challan against the accused persons including the petitioners for offence under Sections 467, 468, 420, 471, 120B IPC. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charge. The accused persons denied the charges and claimed trial.

¶23

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as fourteen witnesses. Thereafter, statements of the accused persons including the petitioners were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, two witnesses were examined and two documents were exhibited.

[2024:RJ-JD:23777]

[CRLR-431/2004]

(3 of 4)

Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 30.05.1998 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioners for offence under Sections 467, 468, 120B IPC.

¶28

Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 17.06.2004. Hence this revision petition.

¶29

During the pendency of the revision, the accused-petitioner No.1 Nand Kishore has expired and this Court vide order dated 23.05.2024 dismissed the revision qua him as abated.

¶30

So far as petitioner No.2 Ram Gopal is concerned, at the threshold, counsel does not challenge the finding of conviction but it is submitted that the occurrence relates back to year 1985 and the petitioner No.2 has so far suffered a sentence of about one month, out of total sentence of three years and six months S.I. In such circumstances, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner No.2 for the aforesaid offences may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶31

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accusedpetitioners. The learned PP submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused petitioners nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case.

¶32

I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment passed by the courts below regarding conviction of the accused-petitioners.

[2024:RJ-JD:23777]

[CRLR-431/2004]

(4 of 4)

It is not disputed that the occurrence has taken place in the year 1985 and the accused-petitioner No.2 has so far undergone a period of about one month incarceration, out of total sentence of three years and six months S.I., and so also suffered the mental agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the accused-petitioner No.2 has remained behind the bars for a considerable time, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Sections 467, 467, 120B IPC and affirmed by the appellate court is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶37

Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of petitioner No.2 for offence under Sections 467, 467, 120B IPC, the sentence awarded to him for aforesaid offences is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The amount of fine is hereby maintained. Two months’ time is granted to deposit the fine amount before the trial court. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner No.2 shall undergo one month’s S.I. The petitioner No.2 is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged.

¶38

The record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.

¶39

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

¶40

152-MS/-

Nand Kishore and Anr. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nand Kishore and Anr. 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

Vala Vs State of Rajasthan

Veer Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Sham @ Shyam Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

The State of Rajasthan Vs M/S Anand Rathi Commoditi Limited

Ramesh Vs State of Rajasthan

Hastu Vs State of Rajasthan