Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Nanda and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.

Nanda and ors. vs The State of Rajasthan and ors.

Disposition Appeal dismissed Court Rajasthan Decided Oct 03, 1983
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/758563

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Rajasthan High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 1979
Subject
Criminal
Disposition
Appeal dismissed

Case Summary

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

PENAL CODE - Sections 147 & 323--Sentence--Occurrence took place in 1977--Held, it would be just & proper that accused be released on probation.;Appeal Partly Allowed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Sect...

Key legal issue
Criminal
Outcome / disposition
Appeal dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Nanda and ors.

Respondent

The State of Rajasthan and ors.

Legal References

Reported In
1983WLN(UC)307

Excerpt

penal code - sections 147 & 323--sentence--occurrence took place in 1977--held, it would be just & proper that accused be released on probation.;appeal partly allowed - 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. - 2,000/- (rupees two thousand) with one surety in the like amount each before the sessions judge, jhalawar to appear and receive sentence during the period of 6 months and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour.m.c. jain, j.1. heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned public, prosecutor for the state.2. mr. goel on behalf of the appellant has simply urged that the appellants have been convicted for the offences under sections 147, 323 i.p.c. and have been sentenced to 1 year's rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo 3 months' rigorous imprisoment on each count.3. the occurrence took place as far back as on 26-4-1977. more than 6 years have elapsed. considering the circumstances of the case and particularly the time which has elapsed, in my opinion, it would be just and proper that the appellants may be instead of being sentenced, released on probation.4. accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed while maintaining the convictions of the appellants, instead of sentencing them, it is ordered that the appellants be released on their entering into a bond for a sum of rs. 2,000/- (rupees two thousand) with one surety in the like amount each before the sessions judge, jhalawar to appear and receive sentence during the period of 6 months and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour.5. learned counsel for the appellants prays for one month's time to submit the requisite bonds. time prayed for is allowed.

Full Judgment

M.C. Jain, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants and learned Public, Prosecutor for the State.

2. Mr. Goel on behalf of the appellant has simply urged that the appellants have been convicted for the offences under Sections 147, 323 I.P.C. and have been sentenced to 1 year's rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo 3 months' rigorous imprisoment on each count.

3. The occurrence took place as far back as on 26-4-1977. More than 6 years have elapsed. Considering the circumstances of the case and particularly the time which has elapsed, in my opinion, it would be just and proper that the appellants may be instead of being sentenced, released on probation.

4. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed while maintaining the convictions of the appellants, instead of sentencing them, it is ordered that the appellants be released on their entering into a bond for a sum of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) with one surety in the like amount each before the Sessions Judge, Jhalawar to appear and receive sentence during the period of 6 months and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellants prays for one month's time to submit the requisite bonds. Time prayed for is allowed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial