RAMKUNVAR RAJKUNVAR ADIVASHI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these revisions have been preferred by the applicants against the common judgment and order dated 11-9-2009 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Junagadh in Criminal Appeal Nos.5 and 6 of 2009 confirming the judgment and order dated 23-10-2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Junagadh, whereby the applicants were ordered to undergo SI for three years and to pay fine Rs.10,000/-, in default, to suffer further three months imprisonment in each case.

(2.) THE facts in short are that two complaints being FIR Nos.2 and 3 of 2007 were registered against the applicants with Babaria Range Police Station for the offences punishable under Secs.2(1), 2(14), 2(16), 2(20), 2(25), 2(26), 2(35), 2(36), 2(37), 9, 27, 29, 31, 52, 2(18), 11, 27(1)(A), 27(1)(B), 27(2), 27(4), 30, 32, 39(B), 40(1)(2), 43(1)(B), 49(A), 49(B) of the Wildlife Protection Act and also under Secs.429, 120-B of Indian Penal Code. As the main accused were arrested on 13-4-2007 and 17-4-2007, based on the statements of the main accused, the present applicants were arrested on 25-4-2007 implicating them with the alleged offences and investigation started and at the end of investigation, charge sheet was submitted in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Junagadh. THE charge was framed against the accused and plea of accused was recorded. THE accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and prayed for trial.

(3.) IT is submitted by Mr.A.M.Parekh that he presses these revisions only qua wordings given in the order passed by the courts below qua the sentence to run concurrently. IT is requested that the Courts below have ordered that all the accused are directed to undergo sentence. However, it has not ordered to run all the substantive sentences concurrently. IT is further submitted that the applicants are in jail since last four years and three months. IT appears that the State has not preferred any appeal for enhancement of sentence awarded. This Court has gone through the judgments and orders passed by both the courts. IT appears that both the cases were discussed by the common judgment and common evidence was recorded in both the cases. Thereafter, the Court convicted the accused by passing the impugned judgments and orders. IT is to be noted that the trial court has not properly worded the order regarding the sentence awarded. Instead of passing the order to run all the sentences concurrently, it was ordered that all the accused are ordered to undergo sentence.