Indal Singh And Ans vs State And Ans (2024:Rj-Jp:5791)
2024 Latest Caselaw 711 Raj/2

Rajasthan High Court

Indal Singh And Ans vs State And Ans (2024:Rj-Jp:5791) on 31 January, 2024

Author: Anil Kumar Upman

Bench: Anil Kumar Upman

[2024:RJ-JP:5791]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR
            S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1007/2003

1.     Indal Singh S/o Shri Hakam Singh, resident of Sitaram
Bazar, Ajmer.
2.     Man Singh S/o Shri Hakam Singh, resident of Sitaram
Bazar, Ajmer.
                                               ----Petitioners
                             Versus
1.     State of Rajasthan through P.P.
2.     Railway Protection Force, Ajmer.
                                             ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tara Chand Sharma for Mr. Kapil Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. M. K. Sheoran, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

Order

31/01/2024

1. Heard the parties.

2. The petitioners were convicted on trial for offence under

Section 3 of Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 and

both were sentenced to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment

and fine of Rs.5,000/- by judgment dated 29.09.2001 passed in

Criminal Case No.194/1984 by learned Addl. Chief Judicial

Magistrate (Railways), Ajmer

3. The conviction was challenged in Criminal Appeal

No.61/2003 which was also dismissed vide judgment dated

01.09.2003 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention

of Atrocities Cases) Ajmer.

4. I have heard and considered the arguments advanced at bar

and gone through the material available on record. After hearing

arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and going

[2024:RJ-JP:5791] (2 of 2) [CRLR-1007/2003]

through the entire material available on record so also after

appreciating the evidence recorded during trial, I am of the

considered view that both the courts below have not committed

any perversity or illegality while passing the judgment convicting

the petitioners, as aforesaid. The courts below have recorded

concurrent finding of fact which does not appear to be a perverse

finding only for the reason that the prosecution failed to produce

any expert witness (mechanical engineer), having technical

knowledge of railway goods and that no independent witness was

associated during the recovery proceedings.

5. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the

judgment of conviction.

6. However, considering the trauma faced by the petitioners

after conviction and in long stretching criminal proceedings for 41

years, the sentence awarded is reduced to period already

undergone which is nearly two months. However, the fine imposed

upon petitioners vide the judgment dated 29.09.2001 does not

require any interference and thus, the same stands confirmed.

The petitioners would be required to pay the fine amount on or

before 01.04.2024 before the learned trial court, failing which,

both shall undergo sentence for default of payment of fine.

7. With the aforesaid modification in sentence, the instant

revision petition stands disposed of.

8. List on 03.04.2024 for furnishing receipt of payment of fine.

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

GAUTAM JAIN /18

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)