Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dalip Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:8318) on 16 February, 2024
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2024:RJ-JD:8318]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1305/2019
Dalip Singh S/o Kalu Singh, Aged About 49 Years, By Caste
Rajput, R/o Jatuwas, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Bijarnia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
16/02/2024
Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner
against judgment and order dated 07.08.2019 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Rajgarh, District Churu in
Cr. Appeal No.71/2016 whereby, the learned appellate court partly
allowed the appeal and while maintaining the conviction of the
petitioner for offence under Section 91(6) of Land Revenue Act,
set aside the judgment and order of sentence passed by Judicial
Magistrate, Rajgarh, District Churu on 26.09.2016 and extended
the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act to the
petitioner. The petitioner was directed to be released on probation
provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.5000/- to
maintain peace and good behaviour for a period of two years. He
was further directed not to repeat the offence and to appear and
receive sentence whenever called upon to do so during the period
[2024:RJ-JD:8318] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1305/2019]
of two years. The appellate court also directed the petitioner to
deposit Rs.2,000/- under Section 5 of Probation of Offenders Act.
The learned trial court i.e. Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh,
District Churu vide judgment dated 26.09.2016 passed in Cr. Case
No.01/2012 sentenced the petitioner for aforesaid offence to
undergo one year's S.I. and imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in
default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's S.I.
Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up is that on
08.07.2011, at Police Station Hamirwas received a report sent by
the Tehsildar, Rajgarh to the effect that the accused-petitioner had
encroached upon the government land situated in village Jatuwar,
which is a gairmumkin Johar Paitan land and he is not vacating the
same. On this report, Police registered a case for offences under
section 91(6) of L.R. Act against the accused-petitioner and
commenced investigation.
On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed by
the Police. Thereafter, charges of the case were framed by the trial
court, which were denied by the accused petitioner and he claimed
trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as seven witnesses and got exhibited various documents.
Thereafter, statement of the accused petitioner was recorded
under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C.
After considering the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses and the material available on record, the trial court vide
judgment dated 26.09.2016 convicted the petitioner for offence
under Section 91(6) of LR Act and sentenced him to one year S.I.
and imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/-
[2024:RJ-JD:8318] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1305/2019]
Being aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the
petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court,
which came to be partly allowed vide judgment dated 07.08.2019
and the appellate court while maintaining the conviction of the
petitioner for offence under Section 91(6) of L.R. Act, set aside his
sentence awarded by the trial court and extended him the benefit
of Probation under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act. Hence,
this revision petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the learned
courts below have failed to appreciate the fact that the
demarcation and measurement of the land in dispute has been
made to ascertain the fact that the petitioner is having
encroachment over the land of Johar Paitan. Further, without
affording any opportunity of hearing to petitioner and without
adopting due process of law, the Tehsildar and Patwari had
initiated wrong criminal proceedings against him, inspite of that
the learned courts below have convicted the petitioner for offence
under Section 91(6) of L.R. Act. Thus, the courts below have
committed grave error in convicting and sentencing the petitioner
for aforesaid offence. Thus, it is prayed that the impugned
judgments may be quashed and set aside.
Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the
respondent-State vehemently opposed the prayer made by
learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that there is no
reason to disbelieve the prosecution evidence and learned courts
below have rightly convicted the accused-petitioner for aforesaid
offence.
[2024:RJ-JD:8318] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1305/2019]
I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for
the accused-petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and
also gone through the entire record.
From perusal of the impugned judgments, I am satisfied that
the accused-petitioner has rightly been convicted for offence
under Section 91(6) of L.R. Act by both the courts below and the
probation period of two years has already been passed. Thus, this
Court does not find any illegality and perversity in the impugned
judgments and the same do not require any interference from this
Court. However, this court considers it appropriate to further
observe that the conviction of the petitioner shall not affect him in
other pending cases under Land Revenue Act.
The revision petition is disposed of accordingly.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
32-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
