Prem Singh vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2060 Raj

[2023/RJJD/006134]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 236/2023

(S.B. Criminal Misc. SOS Application No.52/2023)

Prem Singh S/o Shri Heera Ram, Aged About 55 Years, B/c Daroga R/o Vill. Budhi Tehsil And Dist. Nagaur (Lodged In Jail Nagaur)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Sukhram S/o Shri Bala Ram Jat, R/o Baran Vill. Tehsil And Dist. Nagaur

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surajabhan Singh, Present-in-

Person For Respondent(s) : Mr. Javed Gouri, P.P.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

01/03/2023

A glaring defect of law is noticed in this case. Vide judgment

dated 27.02.2012 passed by ACJM Nagaur in Criminal Regular

Case No.205/2006 (04/2004), the appellant Shagun Singh and

Prem Singh were convicted for committing offence under Section

420 and 120 (B) of IPC and they were directed to serve two years

simple imprisonment with fine.

Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence dated 27.02.2012, the appellants preferred an appeal

before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Nagaur bearing

Criminal Appeal No.15/2012 (244/2015). Assailing the same

judgment, an appeal on behalf of the complainant has also been

[2023/RJJD/006134] (2 of 4) [CRLR-236/2023]

preferred. The case was instituted upon a complainant and as

such it was a warrant case instituted upon a complaint

To the utter dismay, learned appellate Court while dismissing

the appeal has enhanced the sentence from two years to three

years while taking into account the fact that the complainant

Sukharam has also preferred an appeal for enhancement of the

sentence and the appeal of the appellant's got dismissed. It is trite

law that while exercising the power under Section 386 of Cr.P.C.

the appellate Court cannot enhance the sentence against the

judgment of conviction. Again an appeal under Section 377 of

Cr.P.C. can only be moved at the behest of the State and the

complainant is not entitled to move an appeal for enhancement of

the sentence. As per proviso contained in Section 372 of the

Cr.P.C. an aggrieved party can prefer appeal only under three

contingencies, first; against judgment of acquittal, second against

the conviction for a lesser offence and thirdly when it is felt that

the compensation awarded to the convict was not adequate. None

of the contingencies appearing in this case. Section 378 Sub-

clause 4 of the Cr.P.C. stipulates an appeal by the complainant

against the judgment of acquittal only and as such, it seems that

the learned appellate Court has committed a grave error of law in

passing the impugned judgment dated 20.02.2023. Thus, in the

given circumstance, the order of sentence passed by the learned

ACJM, Nagaur as well as passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge No.2, Nagaur deserve to be suspended suspended

till disposal of the revision petition.

[2023/RJJD/006134] (3 of 4) [CRLR-236/2023]

Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed

under Section 397(1) Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the

sentences passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2,

Nagaur vide order dated 20.02.2023 in Cr. Appeal No.15/2012 so

also the order dated 27.02.2012 passed by the learned ACJM

Nagaur in Criminal Regular Case No.205/2006 (04/2004) against

the petitioner-applicant Prem Singh S/o Heera Ram shall remain

suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid revision and he shall

be released on bail, provided he executes a personal bond in the

sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of Rs.10,000/- each to the

satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this

court on 05.04.2023 and whenever ordered to do so, till the

disposal of the revision on the conditions indicated below:-

1. That he/she/they will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the revision is decided.

2. That if the applicant(s) changes the place of residence, he/she/they will give in writing his/her/their changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.

3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s), they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court.

The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of

the accused-applicant(s) in a separate file. Such file be registered

as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the

accused-applicant(s) was/were tried and convicted. A copy of this

order shall also be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal

Misc. file shall not be taken into account for statistical purpose

relating to pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. In

case the said accused applicant(s) does not appear before the trial

[2023/RJJD/006134] (4 of 4) [CRLR-236/2023]

court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High

Court for cancellation of bail.

The another accused Sugan Singh has passed away and

therefore proceeding against him has been abated.

Let an explanation be summoned from the learned Judge of

the appellate Court as to under what provision of law he exercised

the power of enhancement of sentence.

List the matter on 22.03.2023.

(FARJAND ALI),J 180-divya/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)