LAWS(RAJ)-1995-5-67

BAGA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided On May 16, 1995
BAGA RAM Appellant
V/S
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revision petitions have been preferred against the judgment dated 4.4.95 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore, whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by petitioner-Bagaram and confirmed his conviction and sentence for the offences under sections. 408, 467, 468, 471 and 120B Indian Penal Code. He however partly allowed the appeal of Poonmaram and acquitted him for the offence under section. 408 Indian Penal Code, but maintained his conviction and sentence for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 & 120B Indian Penal Code recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore by his judgment dated 23.6.1986. The petitioners have been sentenced for these offences in the manner enumerated below:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_67_LAWS(RAJ)5_19951.html</FRM> It was also ordered that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) Since these revision petitions arise out of common judgments passed by the lower Courts, those are being decided by this common order.

(3.) I have heard Mr. P.N. Mohnani and Mr. Pradeep Shah learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri K.L. Thakur Public Prosecutor at length and carefully perused the record of the lower Courts. I have also gone through the evidence recorded in this case, including the statements of PW 2 Navaram, PW 4 Trilokiram, PW 5 Bhimaram and PW 12 Kaluchand. In my considered opinion, the learned lower Courts have correctly scanned, discussed and evaluated the evidence in right perspective and have not committed any illegality in holding the accused-petitioners guilty for the offences under sections. 467, 468, 47l and 120B Indian Penal Code. From the evidence recorded in this case, offence under Sec. 408 Indian Penal Code has also been successfully brought home beyond reasonable doubt against petitioner-Bagaram, who was the Manager of the Ummedabad Sahkari Seva Simiti, Ummedabad. The concurrent findings of the lower Courts in this regard are based on record and not perverse and those do not warrant any interference.