Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sahab Ram @ Lal Chand vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:20089) on 25 April, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:20089]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 447/2025
Sahab Ram @ Lal Chand S/o Bhagat Ram, Aged About 42 Years,
Resident Of Fatehgarh Purshottam Bas, District Hanumangarh.
(At Present Lodged In District Jail, Hanumangarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Matoria
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Kumar Bhati, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
25/04/2025
An application (01/2025) has been filed by the petitioner
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in
filing the present criminal revision petition.
For reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed
and the delay in filing the present criminal revision petition is
hereby condoned.
The present criminal revision petition has been filed by the
petitioner under Section 438/442 of BNSS R/w Section 11 of the
Probation of Offenders Act against the judgment dated
07.11.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.2,
District Hanumangarh passed in Criminal Appeal No.16/2023,
whereby the appellate court has partly allowed the appeal filed by
the petitioner and while maintaining his conviction under Section
3/25(1-B)(A) of Arms Act passed by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, District Hanumangarh passed in Criminal Case
[2025:RJ-JD:20089] (2 of 5) [CRLR-447/2025]
No.1276/2018, set aside the sentence and instead extended the
benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders
Act while imposing a condition upon the petitioner to furnish bail
bond before the trial court within a period of fifteen days and also
directed to deposit Rs.5,000/- as prosecution expenses.
Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up is that
07.09.2013, during patrolling, Police party recovered a country-
made pistol from the possession of the petitioner. Police registered
a case against the accused petitioner and started investigation.
On completion of investigation, the police filed challan
against the accused petitioner. Thereafter, the trial court framed
charge for offence under Section 3/25(1-B)(A) Arms Act. The
accused petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as 7 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited certain
documents. Thereafter, statement of the accused petitioner was
recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 05.07.2022 convicted and sentenced
the accused petitioner for aforesaid offence.
Being aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the accused
petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court,
which came to be partly allowed vide judgment dated 07.11.2023
and the learned appellate court while maintaining the petitioner's
conviction for offences under Sections 3/25(1-B)(A) of Arms Act,
passed by the trial court, set aside his sentence and instead
extended him benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act
while imposing a condition upon the petitioner to furnish bail bond
[2025:RJ-JD:20089] (3 of 5) [CRLR-447/2025]
before the trial court within a period of fifteen days and also
directed to deposit Rs.5,000/- as prosecution expenses. Hence,
this revision petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the learned
courts below have committed grave error in passing the impugned
judgments. While passing the judgments, the courts below have
failed to appreciate the fact that there are major contradictions,
omissions and improvements in the statements of the witnesses
and thus the prosecution has completely failed to prove its case.
In such circumstances, the learned courts below have wrongly
convicted the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. The learned
appellate court while extending the benefit of probation to the
petitioner has imposed a condition to furnish bail bond before the
trial court within a period of fifteen days and also directed to
deposit Rs.5,000/- as prosecution expenses, which is per se
illegal. Thus, the impugned judgments passed by the courts below
deserves to be quashed and set aside.
In the alternative, counsel submits the being an illiterate
person, the petitioner could not comply with the order of the
appellate court dated 07.11.2023 and therefore, he was arrested
on 18.03.2025 and since then, he is in custody. Counsel submits
that now the petitioner is ready to comply with the conditions
imposed in aforesaid order of the appellate court and the
petitioner may be released on bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the
respondent-State vehemently opposed the prayer made by
learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that learned
courts below have rightly convicted the accused-petitioner for
[2025:RJ-JD:20089] (4 of 5) [CRLR-447/2025]
aforesaid offences. Thus, the impugned judgments do not warrant
any interference.
I have considered the submissions of the counsel for the
parties and perused the impugned judgments passed by this
Courts below and gone through the record of the case.
On perusal of the impugned judgments of the courts below,
it appears that while passing the impugned judgments, the
learned courts below have considered each and every aspect of
the matter and also considered the evidence produced before
them in right perspective. The prosecution has proved its case
beyond all reasonable doubts against the petitioner before the
courts below and thus the learned courts below have rightly
convicted the accused-petitioner for the aforesaid offence. The
learned appellate court partly allowed the appeal of the petitioner
and while maintaining his conviction, extended them the benefit of
probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act while
imposing a condition upon the petitioner to furnish bail bond
before the trial court within a period of fifteen days and also
directed to deposit Rs.5,000/- as prosecution expenses. The
judgments passed by the courts below are detailed and reasoned
order. Thus, this Court does not find any illegality and perversity in
the impugned judgments.
In the light of aforesaid discussion, the petitioner have failed
to show any error of law or on facts on the basis of which
interference can be made by this Court in the impugned
judgments under challenge.
However, since the petitioner could not comply with the order
of the appellate court being an illiterate person, it is ordered that
[2025:RJ-JD:20089] (5 of 5) [CRLR-447/2025]
if the petitioner furnishes bail bond as per the direction of
appellate court and deposits the prosecution expenses of
Rs.5,000/-, he shall be released forthwith if not required in any
other case.
Accordingly, the present criminal revision petition stands
decided.
Stay application also stands decided.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
22-mSingh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
