Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Niranjan Pratap Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:8250) on 15 February, 2024
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2024:RJ-JD:8250]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2142/2023
Niranjan Pratap Singh S/o Shri Chandi Dan, Aged About 50
Years, R/o Jhankar, Pindwara, Sirohi, Rajasthan, Presently
Working As Station House Officer At P.s. Sanchore, Dist.
Jalore(Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajesh Panwar Sr. Adv assisted
by Mr. Mudit Vaishnav
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment 15/02/2024 Instant criminal appeals have been filed by the appellant under Section 351 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 16.08.2023 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jalore in Criminal Misc. Case No. 359/2023 by which the learned Judge convicted the appellant for offence under Section 175 IPC and sentenced him with fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine to undergone one month simple imprisonment.
Brief facts of the case are that in Crimnial Appeal No. 18/2022 (Vimla & Ors Vs. Keshara), the learned court issued notice to respondent Kesharam on various dates which was to be served through SHO, P.S. Sanchore i.e. the appellant. However, the notices remained unserved upon the respondent. Accordingly, the learned court issued notice under Section 175 IPC in which an (Downloaded on 19/02/2024 at 08:44:46 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:8250] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-2142/2023] explanation was furnished that no notices were received by the appellant or any police official, therefore, service could not be effected. The learned court being dissatisfied with the explanation submitted by the appellant, held the appellant guilty for offence under Section 175 IPC and accordingly punished with fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo one month SI.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has very high esteem and regards for the orders passed by the courts and he never deliberately intended to disobey or flout the orders passed by the court. However, if there has been any delay in compliance of the order passed by the Court, he tenders his unconditional apology. It is submitted that he has already deposited the amount of fine imposed by the court below, however, the appellant apprehends that adverse remarks and punishment may act as a disqualification for promotion in future. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned order of conviction and sentence dated 16.08.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, may be set aside or in the alternative, it may be declared that the said remarks/punishment shall not come in the way of appellant for the purpose of promotion or any other purpose.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned order.
From the perusal of impugned order dated 16.08.2023, it is evident that learned court has observed that the notices were sent to the respondent through appellant S.H.O on various dates and the notices remained unserved. Even the show cause notice sent (Downloaded on 19/02/2024 at 08:44:46 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:8250] (3 of 4) [CRLAS-2142/2023] to the appellant on 06.05.2023 for willful disobedience also did not evoke any response from the appellant. Thereafter, notice under Section 175 IPC was issued to the appellant and explanation was furnished. It has been informed by counsel for the appellant that the appellant has already deposited the amount of fine imposed by the court below and does not challenge the order of conviction. Therefore, this Court need not go into the merits of the case and accordingly, the conviction of the appellant as recorded by the learned court for the offence under Section 175 IPC is not interfered with.
(Downloaded on 19/02/2024 at 08:44:46 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:8250] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-2142/2023] Looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the appellant has remained behind the bars for considerable time, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Section 135 of Electricity Act is reduced to the period undergone by him while waiving the amount of fine.
Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the appellant's conviction and sentence for offence under Section 135 of Electricity Act, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone and the amount of fine is hereby waived. Since the appellant has also served the period of imprisonment, he may be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 38-BJSH/-
(Downloaded on 19/02/2024 at 08:44:46 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)