Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Krishn Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan Through P P on 13 March, 2018
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 87/2018
Krishn Kumar S/o Shri Lekhram B/c Khati (Jangir), R/o Mandi
Adampur, District Hisar, Haryana. (Petitioner Is Serving His
Sentence At Central Jail, Jaipur).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anshuman Saxena
For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.S. Godara, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MAHESHWARI
Judgment / Order
13/03/2018
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner on the application
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is
allowed and delay in filing the criminal revision is condoned.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned
Public Prosecutor.
This criminal revision has been preferred on behalf of the accused-petitioner to assail the judgment dated 03.09.2013 passed by the Court of Additional Metropolitan Magistrate No. 20, Jaipur Metropolitan whereby he has been convicted for the offence under section 419 IPC and sentenced to undergo 03 years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500 as also the judgment dated 13.11.2014 passed by First Appellate Court upholding the judgment passed by the trial Court.
(2 of 3) [CRLR-87/2018] At the outset learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not want to press this revision on merits of the case but his prayer is limited to the extent of reducing the quantum of sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner on account of the fact that maximum sentence has been awarded to the petitioner. Counsel further submits that as the petitioner had been arrested in one other criminal case No. 157/2011, P.S. Ashok Nagar for the offence under Section 420 IPC, no material offence was committed by the accused-petitioner by way of impersonation as alleged.
Per contra learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer stating that the accused was convicted for the offence under Sections 18, 61 & 85 NDPS Act in another Criminal Case No.116/1991, P.S. Mandi Adampur, District Hisar (Haryana) and there are many other case pending against the accused- petitioner. Looking to the criminal antecedents, the term of maximum sentence awarded to him cannot said to be excessive.
As counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction of the accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 419 IPC, the conviction aforesaid is maintained. Now, coming to the quantum of sentence, taking all the relevant facts into consideration, this Court is of the view that as the maximum term of sentence has been awarded to the accused for the offence under Section 419 IPC without assigning any specific reason therefore, it appears to be on excessive side.
So far as the case in hand for the offence under Section 419 IPC is concerned, the Court thinks it proper to reduce the sentence from 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment to 1½ years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine is enhanced from Rs. 500 to Rs.
(3 of 3) [CRLR-87/2018] 5,000/-, in default of payment whereof the accused-petitioner will further undergo the sentence of one month Simple Imprisonment.
Accordingly the revision petition is partly allowed in the terms stated above.
(DEEPAK MAHESHWARI),J Arun/118