JAGDISH SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
LAWS(HPH)-1997-4-61
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on April 19,1997

JAGDISH SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

RATTAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. KRISHNA ALIAS RAJU [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

R.L.KHURANA.J - (1.)THE Petitioner on having been tried for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304 -A, Indian Penal Code, by the learned Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rampur, was convicted for the said offences Upon conviction the learned Magistrate vide his judgment dated 22 -12 -1988/27 -2 -1989 instead of imposing any sentence on the Petitioner, gave him the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and ordered his release on his furnishing personal bond with one surety to appear and receive the sentence as and when called upon to do so during a period of two years and in the mean -time to keep peace and be of good behaviour.
(2.)THE State felt aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate directing the release of the Petitioner under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 1958. It accordingly went up in appeal under Section 11(2) and (4) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (1). Shimla The appeal filed by the State was allowed on 2 -3 -199(sic). The order of the learned Magistrate releasing the Petitioner under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, was set aside and instead the Petitioner was sentenced as under:
Offence Sentence 304 I.P.C. Rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1000. 337 I.P.C. Rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 500 338 I.P.C. Rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 500, No Separate sentence for the offence under Section 279, Indian Penal Code was imposed. In the event of non -payment of fine, the Petitioner was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 15 days on each of the three counts. The substantive sentences of imprisonment on each of the three counts were ordered to run concurrently.

The Petitioner feeling aggrieved by the sentence imposed upon him by the learned first appellate court, has come up before this Court by way of the present revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 11(4) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

(3.)BE it stated that the conviction imposed on him by the learned Magistrate was not assailed by the Petitioner by way of an appeal or otherwise before the learned first appellate court.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.