Pilli Ram Vs. State and ors.

Pilli Ram vs State and ors.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Rajasthan Decided May 17, 1991

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/766534

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/766534
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: I.S. Israni, J.
Decided On: May 17, 1991
Case Number: S.B. C.W. Pet. No 763 of 1991
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

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

Penal Code - Section 302 and Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 1958--Rule 8(vi)--Petitioner did not come with clean hands--Petitioner also convicted in other cases--Held, only first convicts are entitled to premature release.;Only such prisoners who are undergoing their first and only conviction, ar...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Pilli Ram

Respondent

State and ors.

Legal References

Cases Referred: (State of Rajasthan v. Pilli
Reported In: 1991(2)WLN444

Excerpt

penal code - section 302 and rajasthan prisons (shortening of sentences) rules, 1958--rule 8(vi)--petitioner did not come with clean hands--petitioner also convicted in other cases--held, only first convicts are entitled to premature release.;only such prisoners who are undergoing their first and only conviction, are entitled for consideration to be released premature release under the above mentioned provisions. the petitioner has come to this court with un-clean hands. he was been convicted in two other cases also as mentioned.;petition dismissed - .....prayed that the respondent may be directed for releasing him on premature release as per provisions of rule 8(vi) of the rajasthan prisons (shortening of sentences) rules, 1958 (for brevity 'the rules, 1958').3. reply has been filed. it is submitted by shri yameen khan on behalf of shri m.i. khan that petitioner is guilty of suppressing the facts. he has three convictions to his discredit. one is in sessions case no. 56/82, which has been mentioned by the petitioner in the petition. apart from this, he was also convicted in case no. 78/83 by learned munsif & judicial magistrate, hindaun city vide judgment dated september 29, '89 for offence punishable under section 323 i.p.c. and was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month. the petitioner was also convicted in criminal case no. 72/88 by learned munsiff & judicial magistrate, hindaun city vide its judgment dated september 29, '89 for the offence under section 325/34 i.p.c. for a period of 2 years r.i. and a fine of rs. 100/- it is contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner is not entitled to premature release in view of the provisions of sub-clause (vi) of rule 8 of the rules, 1958.4. rule 8 lays down the conditions for premature released. clause (vi) of the above rule provides that 'prisoners who have attained the age over 65 years in case of male prisoners and over 55 years in case of women prisoners in whose case no public interest is likely to be served by keeping them in prison: provided they are serving sentences for their first and only conviction.' this shows that only such prisoners who are undergoing their first and only conviction, are entitled for consideration to be released premature release under the above mentioned provisions. the petitioner has come to this court with un-clean hands. he was been convicted in two other cases also as mentioned. 5. the petition is, therefore, dismissed.

Full Judgment

I.S. Israni, J.

1. Heard. None present for petitioner. This case has been adjourned several times, since no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Today also the position is same.

2. A prayer has been made in the petition that orders may be made for premature release of petitioner. It is mentioned in the petition that petitioner was convicted in Case No. 56/82 (State of Rajasthan v. Pilli) by Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City and was sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 I.P.C. Apart from this, some other sentences were also passed for lesser period in the above case in various other Sections. It is also prayed that the respondent may be directed for releasing him on premature release as per provisions of Rule 8(vi) of the Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 1958 (for brevity 'the Rules, 1958').

3. Reply has been filed. It is submitted by Shri Yameen Khan on behalf of Shri M.I. Khan that petitioner is guilty of suppressing the facts. He has three convictions to his discredit. One is in Sessions Case No. 56/82, which has been mentioned by the petitioner in the petition. Apart from this, he was also convicted in case No. 78/83 by learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Hindaun City vide judgment dated September 29, '89 for offence punishable Under Section 323 I.P.C. and was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month. The petitioner was also convicted in Criminal Case No. 72/88 by learned Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate, Hindaun City vide its judgment dated September 29, '89 for the offence Under Section 325/34 I.P.C. for a period of 2 years R.i. and a fine of Rs. 100/- It is contended by the learned Counsel that the petitioner is not entitled to premature release in view of the provisions of Sub-clause (vi) of Rule 8 of the Rules, 1958.

4. Rule 8 lays down the conditions for premature released. Clause (vi) of the above rule provides that 'prisoners who have attained the age over 65 years in case of male prisoners and over 55 years in case of women prisoners in whose case no public interest is likely to be served by keeping them in prison: provided they are serving sentences for their first and only conviction.' This shows that only such prisoners who are undergoing their first and only conviction, are entitled for consideration to be released premature release under the above mentioned provisions. The petitioner has come to this Court with un-clean hands. He was been convicted in two other cases also as mentioned.

5. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 1991 Same Parties Pilli Ram vs State and ors. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge I.S. Israni, J.

Criminal