LAWS(GJH)-2003-2-41

NARSINHBHAI MANIBHAI SAIJA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On February 27, 2003
NARSINHBHAI MANIBHAI SAIJA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three revision applications under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code") have been filed by three different accused persons who faced their trial before the Trial Court. Their Criminal Appeals have been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural).

(2.) The three petitioners herein faced their trial before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Ahmedabad in C.B.I. case no.3 of 1984. The said Court convicted the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 477-A read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court directed the three petitioners to suffer R.I. for six years for each of the aforesaid offences. The Trial Court also directed that each of the aforesaid petitioners shall pay fine of Rs.5,000.00 for each of the aforesaid offences. In default of payment of fine, the petitioners were directed to suffer further R.I. for two months.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and conviction order dated 26th July, 1990 the three petitioners preferred three different Criminal Appeals before the Sessions Court at Ahmedabad (Rural). Out of them Criminal Appeal no.50/1990 was preferred by accused - petitioner Bharatbhai Virjibhai Patel, Criminal Appeal no.53/1990 was preferred by accused - petitioner Narsinhbhai Manibhai Saija and Criminal Appeal no.54/1990 was preferred by accused - petitioner Deviprasad @ Dinesh M. Shukla. The learned Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) heard the petitioners and by a common judgment and order dated 30th May, 1996 dismissed those appeals and confirmed the judgment and conviction order recorded by the Trial Court. However, the said Court reduced the punishment from six yeas R.I. to four years R.I. for each of the said offences. The rest of the portion of the judgment and order of the Trial Court was confirmed. The learned Sessions Judge also directed that the substantive sentence be run concurrently.