Jadulal Vs. the State of Rajasthan

Jadulal vs The State of Rajasthan

Disposition Application allowed Court Rajasthan Decided Jul 30, 1969

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/757119

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/757119
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: B.P. Beri, J.
Decided On: Jul 30, 1969
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Revision No. 198 of 1969
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Application allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal Procedure Code - Section 339(1) Whether a certificate of Public Prosecutor is essential for trial of approver.;Section 339 Cr.P.C. inter alia lays down that where a pardon has been tendered under Section 337 or Section 338 and the public prosecutor certifies that in his opinion any person who has accepted s...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Application allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jadulal

Respondent

The State of Rajasthan

Legal References

Cases Referred: and State of M.P. v. Dalchand
Reported In: 1969WLN398

Excerpt

.....condition on which the tender was made, such person may be tried for the offence in respect of which the pardon was so tendered, or for any other offence of which he appears to have been guilty in connection with the same matter, the certificate of the public prosecutor is a condition precedent for an action under section 339(1). - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - the learned additional sessions judge convicted two out of the four accused named above and inter alia observed in his judgment that 'jadulal approver failed to attend the court on the 23rd january 1969, despite information. thus he has failed to discharge the condition of pardon granted to him.b.p. beri, j.1. this is an application by way of revision directed against the order of the additional sessions judge, baran, dated the 15th march, 1969, whereby he ordered the prosecution of the petitioner under sections 380 and 457 i.p.c.2. the facts which lead up to this application, briefly stated, are these, kanhiyalal mahajan lodged a report in the police station, atru, that in between the night of the 6th and 7th june, 1961, offences of house breaking and theft were committed in his house. the police submitted a report against four parsons namely kanhiyalal, manaklal, ratanlal and prabhulal under sections 380, 457 and 120b i.p.c. jadulal petitioner before me, was also involved in this theft but he had turned an approver and the additional district magistrate, kota, tendered pardon to jadulal under the provisions of section 337 cr.p.c. jadulal was examined by the sub-divisional magistrate as a witness, and on the basis of evidence including that of jadulal, all the four persons mentioned above were convicted under sections 457 and 380 i.p.c. and the petitioner was released. the four persons convicted preferred an appeal and the learned sessions judge baran, accepting the appeal set aside their conviction on the ground that as pardon was tendered to one of the accused, the case should have been committed to the court of sessions. eventually, the four accused were committed to the court of sessions to stand their trial. jadulal was also summoned as a witness. he appeared before the learned additional session judge on a number of dates but his statement was not recorded. on the 14th septemper 1966, the petitioner was again present in the court but the public prosecutor abandoned him as a witness and he was released. the learned additional sessions judge convicted two out of the four accused named above and inter alia observed in his judgment that 'jadulal approver failed to attend the court on the 23rd january 1969, despite information. thus he has failed to.....

Full Judgment

B.P. Beri, J.

1. This is an application by way of revision directed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Baran, dated the 15th March, 1969, whereby he ordered the prosecution of the petitioner under sections 380 and 457 I.P.C.

2. The facts which lead up to this application, briefly stated, are these, Kanhiyalal Mahajan lodged a report in the police station, Atru, that in between the night of the 6th and 7th June, 1961, offences of house breaking and theft were committed in his house. The police submitted a report against four parsons namely Kanhiyalal, Manaklal, Ratanlal and Prabhulal under sections 380, 457 and 120B I.P.C. Jadulal petitioner before me, was also involved in this theft but he had turned an approver and the Additional District Magistrate, Kota, tendered pardon to Jadulal under the provisions of Section 337 Cr.P.C. Jadulal was examined by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate as a witness, and on the basis of evidence including that of Jadulal, all the four persons mentioned above were convicted under Sections 457 and 380 I.P.C. and the petitioner was released. The four persons convicted preferred an appeal and the learned Sessions Judge Baran, accepting the appeal set aside their conviction on the ground that as pardon was tendered to one of the accused, the case should have been committed to the Court of Sessions. Eventually, the four accused were committed to the Court of Sessions to stand their trial. Jadulal was also summoned as a witness. He appeared before the learned Additional Session Judge on a number of dates but his statement was not recorded. On the 14th Septemper 1966, the petitioner was again present in the Court but the Public Prosecutor abandoned him as a witness and he was released. The learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted two out of the four accused named above and inter alia observed in his judgment that 'Jadulal approver failed to attend the court on the 23rd January 1969, despite information. Thus he has failed to discharge the condition of pardon granted to him. Hence in view of Section 339(1) Cr.P.C. he should be tried for the offence Under Section 457 and 380 I.P.C. Let the Magistrate proceed therefore, in accordance with law,' It is against this part of the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baran, that Jadulal has made this application.

3. Mr. K.N. Tikku learned Counsel appearing for Jadulal argued that under Section 339 Cr.P.C. it is on the basis of a certificate from the Public Prosecutor that Jadulal could have been prosecuted for the offence in respect of which pardon was tendered to him. There is no certificate on record and the learned Judge has, therefore, acted illegally.

4. Mr. B.C. Chatterjee, Additional Government Advocate does not dispute the correctness of the contention raised by Mr. K.N. Tikku.

5. Section 339 Cr.P.C., inter alia lays down that where a pardon has been tendered under Section 337 or Section 338 and the Public Prosecutor certifies that in his opinion any person who has accepted such tender has. either by wilfully concealing anything essential or by giving false evidence not complied with the condition on which the tender was made, such person may be tried for the offence in respect of which the pardon was so tendered, or for any other offence of which he appears to have been guilty in connection with the same matter. (The underlining is mine).

6. The certificate of the Public Prosecutor is a condition precedent for an action under Section 339(1). Reference may be made in this connection to Emporor v. Maria Basappa A.I.R. 1925 Bom. 135, Ali v. King Emperor A.I.R. 1925 Lah. 15, Fatta v. Emperor A.I.R. 1947 All. 71 and State of M.P. v. Dalchand : AIR 1960 MP63 . I am in respectful agreement with this view on the plain language of the Section and hold that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was in error when he ordered the prosecution of Jadulal without a certificate from the Public Prosecutor as contemplated by Section 339(1) Cr.P.C.

7. This revision application is, therefore, allowed and the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated the 15th March, 1969, to extent it orders the prosecution of Jadulal is set aside.

Same Parties Jadulal vs The State of Rajasthan Same Subject Criminal Same Judge B.P. Beri, J.

Criminal