Back
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : Satya Prakash Patha
State of Rajasthan - Appellant
Versus
Pooran Ram - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 425 of 1987
Decided On : 02/18/2005
Discretion - Criminal Law - The court affirmed the judgment and order of the trial court, exercising discretion in sentencing the accused for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act, despite the contention that the punishment was not in consonance with the crime committed.
Fact of the Case:
The accused respondent was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act, with the trial court exercising discretion and awarding a sentence for one day.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the punishment inflicted on the accused was in line with the discretion exercised by the trial judge and that there was no reason to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the trial court.
Issues: The issue revolved around the contention that the punishment was not in consonance with the crime committed and whether the appeal filed by the State should be accepted.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the settled position of law that in matters of discretion exercised by the trial court, the appellate court should be slow, and considered the circumstances of the case, including its pending status for nearly two decades.
Final Decision: The court affirmed the judgment and order of the trial court in Criminal Case No. 34/1987, dismissing the State appeal.
S.P. Pathak, J.-This appeal has been filed by the State against the Judgment and order 5.1987 passed by Shri Rajendra Sharma, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and Civil Judge, Raisinghnagar, in Criminal Case No. 34/1987, whereby convicted the accused respondent for the term already undergone by him i.e., for one day.
2. In this matter, the leave to appeal filed by the State was granted on 17.5.1989.
3. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor and learned Counsel appearing for the accused respondent. After going through relevant record, it appears that the accused respondent was convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The accused respondent was not given the benefit of probation by the learned trial Judge.
4. The contention of learned Public Prosecutor is that the punishment inflicted on the accused is not in consonance with the crime committed by him. According to learned Counsel, sentence awarded to the accused was little less, therefore, according to him, the appeal deserves to be accepted.
5. I have carefully gone through the material available on record. Form the record, it reveals that the accused was convicted and the learned trail Judge exercised his discretion in the matter and awarded sentence only for the day. The position of law is settled on the point and time and again the Honble Supreme Court has held that in the matter of discretion exercised by the trial Court, the appellate Court should be slow.
6. Keeping in view the principle of law and also taking into consideration the circumstances of the case that this case is pending for disposal nearly for two decades, I do not find any reason to interfere with the Judgment and order passed by the trial Court.
7. In view of the above discussion, the Judgment and order dated 5.1987 passed by the learned trial Court in Criminal Case No. 34/1987 deserves to be affirmed and the State appeal is liable to be dismissed.
8. Accordingly, the State appeal stands dismissed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
