Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Farid Khan vs State Of J. And K. on 22 February, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000CRILJ2680
ORDER Syed Bashir-Ud-Din, J.
1. This revision is on board from October, 1987. After the motion stage, neither the petition nor his counsel has appeared. The counsel is dead. Respondent/ State has not also appeared after 10-9-1998, despite number of opportunities being given to revision petitioner and defence. Neither party has opted to appear and avail of the opportunities either in person or through counsel. It is in these circumstances that the record has been perused and trial Court file has been also minutely examined.
2. The revision petitioner, an accused in Criminal case No. 54/87, under Section 457/380, RPC, (FIR No. 106/87, Registered at Police Station, Pahalgam), was booked in a case of theft in a shop owned and occupied by one Rafiq Ahmad at Aishmugam on 19-8-87. The revision petitioner on his request and presentation was tried and awarded one month's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- under Section 457, RPC, and two months and a fine of Rs. 200/- under Section 380, RPC. In default of payment of fine, the accused was to undergo further imprisonment of one week and fifteen days respectively on each count. The awarded sentence and imprisonment was to run concurrently. This order of conviction and sentence was recorded on. the confession of the accused.
3. This order is impugned in this petition. The trial Court record reveals that the order of conviction and sentence has been passed on confession of the accused. The confession is voluntary and of accused's own free volition and accord. No fact or circumstance appear on record against the voluntary character of the confessionary statement sufficient time was given to the accused to have cooler reflection and to make up mind on the question of confession. Merely because statement of the accused was recorded before the charge, the charge cannot be said to be legally bad as the act of recording of pre-charge statement is covered by law, Notwithstanding, that the recording to statement has been wrongly labelled as having been recorded under Section 242, Cr. P.C. The procedure of warrant case on police chalan has been followed. The accused is not prejudiced or adversely affected by any procedural error. In fact, there is no procedural error or infraction or defect discernible from record. The presiding Officer has shown concern for rule of law and decided the matter properly in discharge of his judicial functions. The plea of guilt is not outcome of any coercion, undue influence or some extraneous influence. The accused has made a clean breast of the commission of offence.The same cannot be branded as unjudicial act. The case has been dealt with within the confines of law. The conviction and sentence is correct, legal and proper. The regularity of proceedings and procedure of the trial Court is in order. No infraction or volition of any legally mandated substantive or procedural law is made out on record.
4. Revision petition is dismissed on merits. Inform Court below of this order while dispatching the record.