Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Smt Premlata Saini vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 18 November, 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ORDER Smt. Premlata Saini Vs. State of Raj. & Anr. S. B. Cr. MISC. PETITION NO. 3967/2013. under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 4.10.2013 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Cr. Appeal No. 816/2013. Date of Order : 18th November, 2013. HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA Mr Shailendra Singh, for petitioner. Mr Sanjeev K. Mahla, Public Prosecutor. Mr Dheeraj Tripathi, for respondent. BY THE COURT
This Misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 4.10.2013 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Cr. Appeal No. 816/2013 whereby condition of depositing amount of 10% of the compensation amount awarded to the complainant has been imposed.
2. The contention of the present petitioner is that he has been convicted by the court below and while suspending the sentence, the appellate court has imposed the condition of depositing of 10% of the compensation amount awarded to the complainant which is unreasonable and arbitrary and deserves to be quashed.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant and perused the impugned order.
4. The only contention of the present petitioner is that the condition is arbitrary and amounts to abuse of the process and reliance has been placed on Amarveer Singh Vs. State of Raj. & Ors., 2010 (2) WLC (Raj.) 74 wherein it has been held that onerous conditions while suspending the sentence is not permissible and not justified and further reliance has been placed on Shankar Lal Vs. M/s Mahesh Trading Company, 2006 (1) Cr.L.R.(Raj.) 850.
Per contra, the complainant has relied upon Dilip S. Dahanukar Vs. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. & Anr., (2007) 6 SCC 528 where it has been held that where part of compensation has been directed to be deposited, the appellate court is entitled to put the appellant on terms but the condition should not be onerous and it was held justified that a reasonable condition could be imposed. The contention of the present petitioner is that he is a poor person and condition is onerous, he cannot comply with the condition which is practically denying the suspension of sentence to the petitioner.
5. The order of the court below does not contain any contention as regards to the financial status of the present petitioner. The court below has considered the rival contentions of the parties and while relying upon the law laid down in Dilip S. Dahanukar (supra), rightly imposed the condition and only 10% of the compensation amount has been ordered to be deposited which is not an arbitrary or onerous condition. There is no perversity in the impugned order. I am not persuaded by the arguments of the petitioner and no interference is needed.
The petition deserves to be dismissed and hence dismissed.
(NISHA GUPTA),J.
Gandhi/ 137 All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Brij Mohan (Sr. P.A