Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Shakil Ahmad vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 1 May, 2017
Author: Pankaj Bhandari
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1178 / 2016
Shakil Ahmad Son of Shri Daud Khan, by Caste Musalman, R/o
Bangdasi, Police Station Khanpur, District Jhalawar (raj.) (at
Present Accused/petitioner is Confined District Jail Baran)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan Through P.P.
----Respondent
Connected With S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1179 / 2016 Shakil Ahmad S/o Shri Daud Khan B/c Musalman, R/o Bangdasi, Police Station Khanpur, Distt. Jhalawar (raj.) (at Present Accused/petitioner is Confined Distt. Jail Baran)
----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan Through PP
----Respondent S.B. Criminal Misccellaneous (Petition) No. 4938 / 2016 Shakil Ahmad Son of Shri Daud Khan, B/c Musalman R/o Bangdasi, Police Station Khanpur, District Jhalawar (Raj.) (At present confined in District Jail Baran).
----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan Through Pp
----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lakhan Singh Tomar For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sonia Sandilya, PP _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Judgment / Order 01/05/2017 (2 of 4) [ CRLR-1178/2016]
1. Petitioner has preferred Revision Petition No. 1178/2016 aggrieved by the order dated 21.05.2016 and 09.06.2015 whereby the petitioner has been convicted under Section 379 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of one year and a fine of Rs.3,000/- has been imposed upon him and on non-payment of which, petitioner has been directed to undergo further one month simple imprisonment.
2. Revision petition No. 1179/2016 has been filed against orders dated 21.05.2016 and 27.05.2015 whereby the petitioner has been convicted under Section 379 IPC and similar sentence has been imposed.
3. Miscellaneous petition No. 4938/2016 under Section 482 has also been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction that the sentences awarded in both the cases be directed to run concurrently.
4. Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the offence are of the year 2008. Petitioner has been facing trail for last about nine years and petitioner has already undergone sentence of more than one year. Placing reliance on the case of Jai Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 4677/2013, prayer is made that direction be issued that the sentences would run concurrently.
5. Counsel for the State has opposed the revision petition.
6. I have considered the contentions raised by the counsel for the parties.
(3 of 4) [ CRLR-1178/2016]
7. The only relief prayed by the petitioner is to the effect that the sentences be directed to run concurrently. This Court in Sanjay Sharma Vs. Nirmala Dadhich S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1179/2016 and connected matter wherein the accused petitioner was convicted in eight cases, directed that the sentences to run concurrently. However, with regard to fine, this Court directed that the petitioner would have to pay the fine imposed by the Court and on non-payment of the fine he would have to undergo the sentence awarded in default of payment of fine.
8. The sentence in default of payment of fine was directed to run consecutively in Jai Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) there was conviction in two cases simultaneously, the Court directed that the sentence would run concurrently.
9. In the present case in hand, both the FIR pertains to theft of motor cycle on 11.02.2008, the order of the trial Court vide which the petitioner has been convicted was passed on 21.05.2016 in both the cases.
10. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, the revision petition as well as the miscellaneous petition filed by the petitioner deserve to be partly allowed.
11. While upholding the order of conviction passed by the Court below, it is directed that the substantive sentence passed against the petitioner in the above cases would run concurrently. However, the petitioner would have to pay the fine imposed by the Court and on non-payment of the fine, he would have to undergo the sentence awarded in default of payment of fine. The sentence in (4 of 4) [ CRLR-1178/2016] default of payment of fine would run consecutively.
12. The revision petition are accordingly partly allowed.
13. A copy of this order be placed in each file.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI), J.
Arun/46