HARI RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision petition has been filed against the Judgment dated 29-6-85 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur upholding the conviction and sentence passed against the accused by learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur. The accused petitioner was convicted for offence under Sections 454 and 380 Penal Code and sentenced to two year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100.00 on each count. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to further undergo 15 days' simple imprisonment on each count.

(2.) Brief facts leading to this case are that a report was lodged at Police Station, Sawai Madhopur on 30-5-75 by one lalita, Pujari of temple Th. Shreeji situated in Fort Ranthambhor, Sawai Madhopur wherein it was alleged that idols of Shreeji (three Jugaljori of Metal and nine other idols (small) of metal) have been stolen from the temple on the preceding night. Pujari alleged that when he locked the temple in the night after evening prayers, the idols were there but when he arrived in the morning, the found them missing and thus theft has been committed. On receipt of this report, case was registered for offence under Sections 457 and 380 IPC. During the course of investigation, the petitioner along with Sita Ram and Ashok were arrested. Petitioner and Ashok were arrested on 13-7-75 and Sita Ram on 9-7-75. At the instance and on information of the accused 12 smallidols were recovered and after completing the investigation, police submitted the charge-sheet against all the three accused. Prosecution examined five witnesses in support of its case. The learned trial Judge acquitted Sita Ram but convicted the petitioner and one Ashok for offence under Sec. 457 and 380 I. P. C. and sentenced as aforesaid. Petitioner preferred a revision petition against the said judgment of convication and sentence on 3-7-85, which was admitted on 4-7-85 and the record was ordered to be called for. Accused Ashoka sent a revision petition from Jail which was received by this Court on 13-9-85 and was admitted on 16-9-85. An amicus curiea was appointed and on 22-11-85 it came up for hearing before the Court but the record was not available. Hence, the court directed that the record of the trial court be summoned. The office reported that record has already been received in criminal revision petition No. 182/85 filed by the co-accused which is lying for hearing in due course. Office reported that the complete record has been received and the case was ordered to be listed for admission in court on 13-12-85 in utter ignorance of the order already passed by the Court on 16-9-85 by which the revision petition had been admitted. It came up before one of my brother Judges on 13-12-85 and the Court after hearing the revision petition. It appears that the fact of the judgment brought to the notice of the Court, and due to lapse on part of registry, there was no noting that case has to be tagged with the revision petition of the co-accused which is in due course. When present revision Petition came up for final hearing on 24-2-89, I thought it proper to verify from the Registry as to whether revision has been filed by co-accused, or not because again there was no noting on this file and on a search made, the Registry brought the file of criminal revision No. 283/85 which was dismissed by my brother Honourable M.B. Sharma J. on 13-12-1985 as stated above. This is how this revision petition came to be heard.

(3.) Arguments were heard on merits on 24-2-89 and the case was kept for dictation of judgment of judgment on 27-2-89 and the case was kept for dictation of judgment on 27-2-89. I found on perusal of the record that there was no warrant for interference in the order of conviction and there were more chances for dismissal of the revision on merits, but at the same time, it could be a case of mis-guiding the accused by some one as he was of tender age at the time of commission of the offence and possibly could be a case where accused could have been reformed in case his case would have been dealt with under the provisions of Probations of offenders Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and, therefore, vide order dated 28-2-89, I directed District Probation Officer, Sawai Madhopur to send his report of the conduct of the petitioner as contemplated under Sec. 4 (2) and 6 (2) of the Act and Rule 16(1) of the Rajasthan Probation of offenders rules, 1962. A report has been received from the Probation Officer on 24-3-89. It is thereafter, that case came up for hearing again today.