Rajasthan High Court
State vs Chandresh Shukla on 13 January, 2023
Bench: Farjand Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 590/2008
State of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
Chandresh Shukla S/o Poranik Shulka, aged about 26 years R/o
Mohalla Shayama Prasad Mukherjee Ward No.36 Chapparava,
Police Station Madhonagar, District Katni (M.P.)
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajendra Yadav, AAG with
Mr. Mangal Singh Saini, P.P.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Khizer Iqbal Khan
Mr. Arvind Kumar Arora with
Mr. Ashish Joshi
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Judgment
13/01/2023
The instant appeal has been preferred by the State of
Rajasthan for enhancement of sentence under Section 377 of
Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction dated 01.11.2007
passed by learned Special Judge (Sati Prohibition) and Additional
Sessions Judge, Jaipur City District Jaipur in Sessions Case No.
14/2007 whereby the accused- Chandresh Shukla S/o Poranik
Shulka, was convicted for the offences under Section 3 read with
Section 9 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that upon receiving
information, the police went to the Ambedkar Park where they
found the accused- Chandresh Shukla and another co-accused
along with some documents. Both the accused were sent to
(2 of 5) [CRLA-893/2014]
Special Police Station, Rajasthan, Jaipur where a case came to be
registered against them for the offences under Sections 3 and 3/9
of the Official Secrets Act and investigation commenced. The case
of the accused-respondent was transferred to the court of learned
Special Judge (Sati Prohibition) & Additional Sessions Judge,
Jaipur City, District Jaipur and the trial was set into motion. The
learned Special Judge framed charge against the accused-
respondent under Sections 3/9 of the Official Secrets Act.
As many as 23 witnesses have been examined in the trial
and 53 documents have been tendered into evidence by the
prosecution. Thereafter, an explanation was sought from the
accused-respondent under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he refuted
the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and stated that he
was falsely being implicated in the matter. Subsequently, after
hearing learned counsel for the accused and the public prosecutor
and carefully examining the evidence produced before the court in
detail, the learned trial court convicted the accused-respondent
under Section 3/9 of the Official Secrets Act and sentenced the
accused to suffer as sentence of seven years simple imprisonment
as the case of the prosecution was found proved beyond
reasonable doubt. Aggrieved by the said order of sentence, the
present appeal was filed by the state under Section 377 of CrPC
for enhancement of sentence.
Learned GA-Cum-AAG, Mr. Rajendra Yadav, submits that
looking to the nature and gravity of the offence, the learned trial
Court ought to have punished the respondent with the maximum
punishment prescribed under the provisions because the matter
relates to conduct/act which is prejudicial to the safety or interests
(3 of 5) [CRLA-893/2014]
of the State.
Learned GA-cum-AAG further submits that the order of
sentence passed by the learned trial court is error-ridden and
warrants interference by this Hon'ble Court. He further submits
that order of sentence as passed by learned court below is not
adequate in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-accused
submits that the sentence was passed by the lower court after
detailed consideration of the relevant facts and circumstances and
the material available on record.
Heard. Gone through the impugned judgment and the other
material available on record. As apprised to this Court by learned
counsel for the State, the sentence awarded to respondent-
accused has been served by him and presently, he is in detention
center.
The learned court below passed the order of sentence after
considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the
facts and circumstances pertaining to the accused-respondent and
the nature and gravity of the offences and there is no patent
illegality to be found in the impugned order, thus, the impugned
order does not warrant interference by this Court. It is well-
established that the question of sentence is subject to discretion
and if the discretion has been properly exercised along accepted
judicial lines, an appellate court should not interfere to the
detriment of an accused person except for very strong reasons
which must be disclosed on the face of the judgment. The
aforesaid principle has been encapsulated by Hon'ble the Apex
Court in Bed Raj Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh reported in
(4 of 5) [CRLA-893/2014]
AIR 1955 SC 778 wherein the enhanced sentence passed by the
High Court was set aside and the sentence passed by the Sessions
Court was restored.
The order of sentence passed by the trial Court has been
arrived at after due deliberation and careful examination of the
evidence produced before it and the same is not erroneous and
thus, our opinion is in concurrence with the quantum of sentence
determined by the trial court. There is no wiggle room for
enhancement of quantum of sentence in the present matter as the
sentence passed by the court below provides substantial
punishment and in cases where substantial punishment has been
prescribed by the lower court, interference is warranted only when
the sentence is evidently inadequate. Merely because of enormity
of the offence, a sentence prescribing substantial punishment
cannot be enhanced without there being patent illegality in the
order of sentence passed by the lower court.
In light of the above observations and considering the
arguments advanced at the bar, this Court does not find any room
for interference in the order passed by the learned trial Court and
the punishment awarded to the accused-respondent is condign
and adequate.
As an upshot of the discussion made herein above, there is
no cause for enhancement in the sentence passed by the court
below. We concur with the finding reached by the learned District
& Sessions Judge and thus, affirm the same. The appeal deserves
to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.11.2007
(5 of 5) [CRLA-893/2014]
passed by learned Special Judge (Sati Prohibition) and Additional
Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, District Jaipur in Sessions Case No.
14/2007 is upheld. The bail bonds of the accused-respondent are
discharged. He shall be released forthwith if not wanted in any
other case and has served the sentence imposed upon him.
(FARJAND ALI),J
PREETI VALECHA/100
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
