Partly allowed

Badri Lal v. State

Rajasthan HC23 Oct 2024CRLR/578/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in a criminal revision allowed the petition partly. Conviction against petitioner for offences under Sections 420 and 471 IPC was maintained as no illegality was found. However, the substantive sentence was reduced to the period already undergone due to protracted trial and leniency, while directing payment of the fine.

What did the court decide?

Conviction maintained; substantive sentence reduced to period already undergone; petitioner directed to deposit fine of Rs. 700/-

Badri Lal Vs State — Corruption | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:44651]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 578/2005

¶4

Badri Lal son of Birdhi Lal, resident of Bachhola, PS Nainwa, Dist. Bundi (At present lodged in District Jail, Tonk)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Singh Tanwar, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, Dy.G.A.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order

¶11

23/10/2024

¶12

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 against the judgment dated 21.06.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Bundi in Criminal Appeal No.13/1999, whereby the appeallate court partly allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner and while acquitting the petitioner for the offence under Sections 467 and 468 IPC giving benefit of doubt, affirmed the judgment dated 15.05.1999 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainwa in Criminal Case No.474/1993 passed by the trial Court, whereby the trial court convicted and sentenced the petitioner for the offence under Sections 471 and 420 IPC and sentenced as under-:

[2024:RJ-JP:44651]

[CRLR-578/2005]

(2 of 4)

for the offence under Section 471 IPC, to undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.200/-, in default thereof, to further undergo one month’s rigorous imprisonment.

¶17

for the offence under Section 420 IPC, to undergo one and a half years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/-, in default thereof, to further undergo two months’ rigorous imprisonment.

¶18

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 as awarded by the appellate 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.

¶19

On the other hand, learned Dy. GA appearing for the State, has submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment whatsoever and, therefore, the same does 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.

¶20

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

¶21

Since the present revision petition against conviction is not pressed on merits 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 wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained.

[2024:RJ-JP:44651]

[CRLR-578/2005]

(3 of 4)

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 31 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.

¶26

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 offence under Sections 471 and 420 IPC, the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶27

However, the petitioner shall deposit the fine amount of Rs. 700/- as levied by the trial Court vide judgment dated 15.05.1999 and for the offence under Sections 420 and 471 IPC respectively and affirmed by the appellate court vide judgment dated 21.06.2005 with the learned trial Court, if not already deposited, within two months from today, failing which the said amount shall

¶28

(4 of 4) [CRLR-578/2005]

¶29

[2024:RJ-JP:44651]

¶30

be recovered in terms of Section 461 BNSS by concerned District Collector as a land revenue. The petitioner is on bail. He need not to surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled accordingly .

¶31

Record be sent to the trial Court.

¶32

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶33

Tahir/17

Badri Lal v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Badri Lal 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

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

Salim Vs State