Dhanna Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan

penal code - sections 224 & 332--sentence--occurrence 11 years old--accused already remained in jail for 13 days--lower court imposing fine of rs. 1000/---held, sentence ate reduced to already undergone with fine.;an offence under section 1224 is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine or with both. thus an offence done under section 1322, ipc and in such which it is not necessary to inflict any sentence of imprisonment. taking into consideration that the case is going on since 23rd february, 1976 and the accused has already undergone sentence of about 13 days, in my opinion the sentence already undergone and fine awarded by the learned additional sessions judge shall meet the cods of justice.;revision 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. .....raised by the learned counsel for the accused petitioner is the occurrence is said to have been taken place on 23rd november, 1976 i.e. almost more than 11 years ago and the accused has already remained in custody since february 27, 1987 the day his appeal was partly allowed by the learned additional sessions judge. according to the learned counsel for the accused appellant, taking, into consideration the long period the accused had to undergo ordeal of the trial it shall meet the ends of justice if he is sentenced the sentence already undergone.3. an offence under section 224 is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both. thus an offence done under section 322, ipc and in such it is not necessary to inflict any sentence of imprisonment. taking into consideration that the case is going on since 23rd february, 1976 and the accused has already undergone sentence of about 13 days, in my opinion the sentence already undergone and fine awarded by the learned additional sessions judge shall meet the ends of justice.4. consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed while maintaining the conviction under sections 224 & 332, ipc, the accused is sentenced to suffer the sentences already undergone. the sentence of fine under each of the count passed by the additional sessions judge is maintained. the moment the accused shall deposit the fine in the trial court then he shall be released forthwith if he not required in any other case.