JAMNALAL Vs. STATE OF RAJSTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the above numbered revision petitions arise out of the same judgment dated 7-3-86 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dausa Camp. Jaipur. The said judgment was delivered in two criminal appeals Nos. 117/1979 and criminal appeal No. 89/1976. The said two - appeals have been filed against the judgment dated 8-4-76 of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. Jaipur District, Jaipur convicting each of the accused petitioner Mussadi Lal and Jamna Lal under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing the accused petitioner Mussadi Lal to undergo six months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer 2 months R.I. and sentencing Jamna Lal to undergo 4 months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer one months R.I. The accused petitioner Mussadi Lal was also convicted under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 109/420 of the Indian Penal Code and on former count he was sentenced to undergo one months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- or in default of payment of fine to further suffer 15 days R.I. Under the latter count 4 months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer one month, R.I. The accused petitioner Jamna Lal was also convicted under Section 120B and was sentenced to undergo one months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer 15 days R.I.

(2.) The substantive sentences under both the counts were ordered to run concurrently. The learned Additional. Sessions Judge under the; impugned judgments dismissed the appeals both in respect of conviction as well as sentence.

(3.) The facts of the case are contained in the judgment of two courts below and more so in the judgment of the Trial Court in detail but the only prayer which has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the case is of the year 1971 and the accused petitioner have already undergone some sentences. Not only this the entire dues of the bank have been paid and, therefore, the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act may be extended to the accused petitioners. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the case of State v. Ramados Naidu & ors. of Madras High Court and to the case of Abdul Hamid v. State of U.P. In the earlier case the court has extended the benefit of the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act under Sections 415 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.