Vinod Goyal And Anr vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 9 February, 2018

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Misccellaneous (Petition) No. 610 / 2018
1. Vinod Goyal S/o Shri Malaram B/c Mahajan, Aged About 48
Years, R/o Dudawa, Police Station Pilani, District Jhunjhunu, Raj.

2. Rajesh @ Raju S/o Shri Malaram B/c Mahajan, Aged About 42
Years, R/o Dudawa, Police Station Pilani, District Jhunjhunu, Raj.
(at Present At District Jail, Jhunjhunu)
—-Petitioners
Versus
State of Rajasthan Through PP.
—-Respondent

__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Punia.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aladeen Khan, PP
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MAHESHWARI
Judgment
09/02/2018

Heard learned counsel for the accused-petitioners as also

learned Public Prosecutor.

The petitioners had faced trial for the offences under

Sections 420, 120-B 406 IPC. The trial court ordered the

conviction and sentence of the accused-petitioners in the following

manner :-

1. Criminal Case Sec.406 IPC Acquitted
No.479/2016
Sec. 120-B
IPC For One year simple
judgment dated
imprisonment and fine of
04.10.2017
Rs.2000/- and in default of
payment of fine, further to
undergo two months simple
imprisonment.

Sec. 420 IPC For Two years simple
(2 of 4)
[CRLMP-610/2018]

imprisonment and fine of
Rs.8000/- and in default of
payment of fine, further to
undergo four months simple
imprisonment.

2. Criminal Case Sec.406 IPC Acquitted
No.171/2016
Sec.120-B
IPC For Six months simple
judgment dated
imprisonment and fine of
25.09.2017
Rs.1000/- and in default of
payment of fine, further to
undergo 15 days simple
imprisonment.

For Two years simple
Sec.420
IPC imprisonment and fine of
Rs.9000/- and in default of
payment of fine, further to
undergo one months simple
imprisonment.

3. Criminal Case Sections 420 Acquitted on the basis of
No.807/2017 406
IPC compromise.
judgment dated
05.12.2017
Sec.120-B
IPC For Three months simple
imprisonment.

4. Criminal Case Sections 420 Acquitted on the basis of
No.808/2017 406
IPC compromise.
judgment dated
05.12.2017
Sec.120-B
IPC For Three months simple
imprisonment.

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the

petitioners has not challenged the conviction and sentence of the

petitioners as ordered by the courts below but has submitted

that substantive sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioners

be ordered to run concurrently in all four cases. Learned counsel

has submitted that in-fact, the receipts with regard to handling
(3 of 4)
[CRLMP-610/2018]

over of the food grains by the complainant were issued by the

clerk of the petitioners. The said clerk of the petitioners was also

arrayed as an accused but the said co-accused Pabudan Singh is

absconding. Although, in all four cases, complainants are

different but they are related to each other and similar

allegations have been levelled against the petitioners.

Complainant had admitted in his cross-examination that he was

not in possession of any writing issued by the petitioners with

regard to handling over the food grains to them.

To support his contention, counsel for the petitioners has

placed reliance on following judgments :-

(I)- Sanjay Sharma Vs. Nirmala Dadhich – S.B. Criminal

Revision Petition No.179/2016 other connected

cases – decided on 10.04.2017.

(II)- Rakesh Vs. State of Rajasthan – S.B. Criminal

Revision Petition No.984 five other connected

cases – decided on 26.11.2013.

(III)- State of Punjab Vs. Madan Lal, reported in 2009(5)

SCC 238.

(IV)- Dinesh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan Anr. –

Criminal Misc. Petition No.43/2010.

(V)- Rajendra Vs. State of Rajasthan – Criminal Misc.

Petition No.2883/2017.

(VI)- Arjun Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in

2016(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 346.

(4 of 4)
[CRLMP-610/2018]

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it

would be just and expedient to order that the substantive

sentence qua imprisonment in all four cases be ordered to run

concurrently.

Accordingly, the misc. petition stands disposed off with a

direction that the substantive sentence qua imprisonment of the

accused-petitioners in all four cases shall run concurrently.

(DEEPAK MAHESHWARI)J.

Rm/33

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *