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.

Gopi Vs. State of Rajasthan

Gopi vs State of Rajasthan

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Apr 15, 1986
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/768423

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 Revision Petition No. 101 of 1986
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

OPIUM ACT - Section 4/9--Sentence--Incidence of 1972--Accused 60 years old--Undergone imprisonment J or 25 days--Held, sentence is reduced to already undergone.;Revision Partly Allowed - - 200/-.Still being unsatisfied, he has come up in revision. The long trial must naturally have resulted into a good deal of har...

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Gopi

Respondent

State of Rajasthan

Legal References

Reported In
1986WLN(UC)254

Excerpt

opium act - section 4/9--sentence--incidence of 1972--accused 60 years old--undergone imprisonment j or 25 days--held, sentence is reduced to already undergone.;revision partly allowed - - 200/-.still being unsatisfied, he has come up in revision. the long trial must naturally have resulted into a good deal of harassment and monetary loss to the petitioner.kishore singh lodha, j.1. the petitioner gopi was convicted under section 4/9 of the opium act and sentenced to six months' r.i. and a fine of rs. 500/- by the learned munsif and judicial magistrate, chittorgarh by his judgment dated 19-4-1979. on appeal, the learned additional sessions judge, chittorgarh maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence for four months' r.i. and a fine of rs. 200/-. still being unsatisfied, he has come up in revision.2. the only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that looking to all the circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded to the petitioner deserves to be reduced. in view of this contention, i have heard the learned public prosecutor also.3. the occurrence is as old as 21-10-1972. the accused has suffered a long trial for about 14 years. it has also been found by the learned additional sessions judge that he is more than 60 years of age. the long trial must naturally have resulted into a good deal of harassment and monetary loss to the petitioner. he has already undergone about 25 days' imprisonment. looking to all these circumstances, i am of the opinion that the substantive sentence awarded to him, may be reduced to that already undergone and in lieu of the reduction of the substantive sentence, the fine may be increased.4. if therefore, partly allow this revision and while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner, reduce the substantive sentence awarded to him to that already undergone by him and in lieu of reduction of the substantive sentence, the fine is increased by a sum of rs. 700/. it the fine is not paid, the petitioner shall undergo three months' s.i.

Full Judgment

Kishore Singh Lodha, J.

1. The petitioner Gopi was convicted under Section 4/9 of the Opium Act and sentenced to six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh by his judgment dated 19-4-1979. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence for four months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/-. Still being unsatisfied, he has come up in revision.

2. The only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that looking to all the circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded to the petitioner deserves to be reduced. In view of this contention, I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.

3. The occurrence is as old as 21-10-1972. The accused has suffered a long trial for about 14 years. It has also been found by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that he is more than 60 years of age. The long trial must naturally have resulted into a good deal of harassment and monetary loss to the petitioner. He has already undergone about 25 days' imprisonment. Looking to all these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the substantive sentence awarded to him, may be reduced to that already undergone and in lieu of the reduction of the substantive sentence, the fine may be increased.

4. If therefore, partly allow this revision and while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner, reduce the substantive sentence awarded to him to that already undergone by him and in lieu of reduction of the substantive sentence, the fine is increased by a sum of Rs. 700/. It the fine is not paid, the petitioner shall undergo three months' S.I.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial