Gujarat High Court
Dinmohd @ Dinyo Jumabhai Sindhi vs State Of Gujarat on 25 August, 2023
Bench: M. R. Mengdey
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/331/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 331 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY Sd/-
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed NO
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy NO
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question NO
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
DINMOHD @ DINYO JUMABHAI SINDHI & 1 other(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRATIK B BAROT(3711) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MS VRUNDA SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
Date : 25/08/2023
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present application has been preferred by the
applicants under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C
challenging the judgment and order dated 16.01.2013 passed
by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Criminal Appeal
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/331/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2023
undefined
No.85 of 2012, whereby the judgment and order dated
21.04.2011 passed by Additional Civil Judge and Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Kadi in Criminal Case No.1093 of 2010
was confirmed.
2. At the outset, learned advocate for the applicants has
submitted that he does not press the present application so far
as the aspect of conviction of the present applicants is
concerned. He submits that though the Appellate Court in its
impugned judgment and order has categorically ordered that
since the applicants herein have served their sentence, they
be released from jail forthwith, however, the Jail Authority did
not release the applicants, as directed by the Appellate Court.
He, therefore, submitted that an appropriate direction be given
to the concerned Jail Authority in this regard.
3. Learned APP Ms.Vrunda Shah opposes grant of present
application.
4. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the
material available on record. The Court of Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Kadi had convicted both the applicants herein for
the offence punishable under Section 25(1-b)(a) of the Arms
Act and were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of two years with fine of Rs.500/- and in default of
making payment of fine, the applicants were further ordered to
suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 1 (One) month. The
Trial Court had also ordered that the benefit of set off under
Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. be given to the present applicants.
The said judgment and order was carried in appeal by the
present applicants, which was confirmed by the impugned
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/331/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2023
undefined
judgment and order. While dismissing the appeal, the
Appellate Court had also reiterated and ordered that since the
applicants herein had already served their sentence, they be
released forthwith.
5. The record indicates that the present applicants were
taken into judicial custody with regard to the offence in
question on 09.03.2010 and since then the applicants were in
judicial custody. The Trial Court in its judgment and order has
also mentioned that the present applicants are in judicial
custody since they were arrested in connection with the
present offence and they have not been released on bail. The
record also indicates that the applicants herein were also
required to serve the sentence imposed upon them by the
Sessions Court, Bharuch in Sessions Case Nos.55/2003,
76/2003 and 116/2003, wherein sentence of imprisonment for
10 years was imposed upon them.
6. Since the present applicants were arrested in connection
with the present offence on 09.03.2010 and were never
released on bail during the trial or even during the pendency of
the appeal before the Appellate Court, the sentence imposed
upon them would have been over by 09.03.2012. The record
also indicates that the applicants had not deposited an amount
of fine, and therefore, they were required to undergo simple
imprisonment for 1 (One) more month. Considering the same,
total sentence imposed upon the applicants would have been
over by 09.04.2012. The Appellate Court had, therefore, rightly
directly the jail authorities to release the applicants forthwith,
if not required in any other case.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/331/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2023
undefined
7. As submitted by learned advocate for the applicants that
despite the directions of the Appellate court, the jail authorities
did not release the applicants from the jail pursuant to the
order of the Appellate Court.
8. It is reported that pending the present application, the
sentence imposed upon the applicants herein were suspended
by this Court and presently the applicants are on bail.
9. In the totality of the facts, the applicants herein had
already served the sentence imposed upon them by the Trial
Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court by 09.04.2012 and
the Jail Authorities were required to release the present
applicants on 09.04.2012 itself. The applicants, therefore, shall
be considered to have served and completed their sentence on
09.04.2012 and shall be treated to have been released from
the jail with effect from 09.04.2012, if not required in any other
case.
With aforesaid observations, the present application
stands disposed of.
(M. R. MENGDEY,J)
GIRISH
