Moola Ram vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 7101 Raj

                                           (1 of 2)                  [CRLR-1565/2019]


     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR
          S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1565/2019

Moola Ram S/o Shri Tiku Ram, Aged About 65 Years, By Caste
Jat, R/o Chak 10 Mc Dhani Rohi Gopalsar, Tehsil Suratgah,
District Sri Ganganagar.
                                                                         ----Petitioner
                                         Versus
1.      State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
2.      Deepa Ram S/o Ladhu Ram,
3.      Chena Ram S/o Taru Ram,
4.      Chandu Ram S/o Deda Ram,
        The respondent No.2 to 4 by Caste Jat, R/o 10 Mc
        Gopalsar, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar.
5.      Net Ram S/o Harigiri, By Caste Gunsai, R/o 1 Spm, Tehsil,
        Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar.
                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)              :     Mr. Jaidev Singh Bhati
For Respondent(s)              :     Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan, PP



     HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

                                         Order

12/05/2022

     This criminal revision petition has been preferred under

Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C., claiming the following relief:

     "It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this

     revision petition may kindly be allowed and impugned order

     dated 21.10.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,

     Suratgarh,     District       Sri   Ganganagar     in    Criminal     Appeal

     No.26/2017 and the impugned judgment dated 18.04.2017

     passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh, District Sri

     Ganganagar in Criminal Case No.83/2011 may kindly be quashed

     and set aside and the accused respondents may kindly be




                       (Downloaded on 13/05/2022 at 09:00:14 PM)
                                                                            (2 of 2)                 [CRLR-1565/2019]


                                        ordered to be convicted and sentenced for the offence under

                                        Section 427, 447, 430 read with Section 34 IPC."

                                        Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite

                                   conviction, the benefit of probation has been wrongly extended to

                                   the petitioner.

                                        This Court finds that the nature of offence being Sections

                                   427 and 447 of IPC justified the extension of benefit of probation.

                                   The order passed by the learned trial court does not call for any

                                   interference. The conviction is already maintained.

                                        In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed. All

                                   pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.



                                                                 (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

36-Zeeshan

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)