MAHESH CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petitions are directed against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar dated August 29, 1984, by which he dismissed the appeals field against the judgment of the Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh, dated June 25, 1983.

(2.) The petitioners have been convicted and sentenced as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_63_CRIMES1_1986Html1.htm</FRM> Sentence under these two sections are ordered to run after the accused serves out the sentence for offence U/ss 420 & 120 B IPC and thereafter shall run concurrently. The accused were charged on the facts that though they were not the qualified Eye-Surgeons yet they after entering into a criminal conspiracy made wide publicity for performing the operations and holding camps at various places. Since they were not skilled, number of persons lost their eye-sight and the cases were registered against them. They have been tried for offences under sections 120B, 420, 326, 337 and 338 IPC. Two separate challans were filed and the accused were tried together. The trial court on the evidence found the accused persons guilty of all the offences and hence convicted and sentenced as indicated above. An unsuccessful appeal was preferred before the Additional Sessions Judge.

(3.) These two revision petitions have been received from jail and after receipt of the same this Court called for thy records of the trial court and I have carefully perused the same. No ground for interference in revisional jurisdiction is available on the record of this case. Both the courts have considered the evidence and have arrived at right conclusion. I am not inclined to interfere on merits in these revision petitions. After looking into record and arguing for same time learned counsel for the petitioners appointed by the court as amicuscurie also considered and in my opinion rightly so. The only point urged by the petitioners is that in the circumstances of the case sentences imposed is excessive and as such the same should be reduced. In support of the contentions regarding sentences, it is submitted that the accused are in custody since July 1982 and it is practically three years they are in jail now as such they should be released on the sentence already undergone. It is contended that fact maximum sentence imposed by the trial court in these cases is for offence under section 338 I.P.C. but sentences under sections 420 and 120B I.P.C. are ordered to run concurrently while sentence for offence u/s 337. 338, 337/109 & 338/109 I.P.C. have been ordered to run separately and if that be so then the accused have to remain in jail for more term. It is also submitted that sentence of fine is also excessive.