Ladu Vs. State of Rajasthan

Ladu vs State of Rajasthan

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Apr 18, 1985

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/769015

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/769015
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: Vinod Snanker Dave, J.
Decided On: Apr 18, 1985
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Revision No. 100 of 1985
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

Penal Code - Section 380 and Criminal Procedure Code--Section 360--Benefit of--Benefit Under Section 360 not extended to accused--Held, it is obligatory to record reasons for not extending benefit Under Section 360;It is obligatory on every Court to consider the case under Section 360 Cr.PC and if the Court comes to...

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ladu

Respondent

State of Rajasthan

Legal References

Reported In: 1985WLN(UC)333

Excerpt

penal code - section 380 and criminal procedure code--section 360--benefit of--benefit under section 360 not extended to accused--held, it is obligatory to record reasons for not extending benefit under section 360;it is obligatory on every court to consider the case under section 360 cr.pc and if the court comes to the conclusion that the case is not fit for extending benefit under section 360 cr.pc, then reasons should be given for doing so.;revision partly allowed. - - 1000/-for maintaining the peace for six months and to be of good behaviour during this period......conviction of the petitioner has not been challenged on merits in this revision petition. the only point argued is about extending the benefit of section 360 cr. pc.5. this incident took place as early as in 1977 and the trial court convicted the accused after seven years and did not mention any reason as to why the benefit of section 360 cr. pc was not to be extended to the accused. it is obligatory on every court to consider the case under section 360 cr. pc and if the court comes to the conclusion that the case is not fit for extending benefit under section 360 cr. pc, then reasons should be given for doing so. the appellate court also fell into the same error and did not consider the aforesaid provisions of law.6. i have given my earnest consideration to the facts of the case and am of opinion that looking to the nature of the offence and the character of the accused and also keeping in view the fact that the accused has been facing the trial since 1977, he should be given the benefit of section 360 cr. pc.7. for the reasons mentioned above, i partly allow this revision petition. the conviction of the accused-petitioner is maintained, but instead of the sentence passed by the courts below the accused-petitioner shall be released on probation, provided he executes a bond in the sum of rs. 1000/-for maintaining the peace for six months and to be of good behaviour during this period. the bond shall be furnished to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Full Judgment

Vinod Snanker Dave, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State.

2. This revision petition is directed against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Dausa dated April 11, 1985, whereby he maintained the conviction and sentence passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Chomu, District Jaipur in a case under Section 380 IPC.

3. The occurrence in this case took place on the intervening night between 18th and 19th September, 1977, wherein a theft of a watch, a shirt and a sum of Rs. 60/- had been committed. Since the case was proved on evidence, the accused was convicted and the sentence passed against him was six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/-.

4. The conviction of the petitioner has not been challenged on merits in this revision petition. The only point argued is about extending the benefit of Section 360 Cr. PC.

5. This incident took place as early as in 1977 and the trial court convicted the accused after seven years and did not mention any reason as to why the benefit of Section 360 Cr. PC was not to be extended to the accused. It is obligatory on every Court to consider the case under Section 360 Cr. PC and if the Court comes to the conclusion that the case is not fit for extending benefit under Section 360 Cr. PC, then reasons should be given for doing so. The appellate court also fell into the same error and did not consider the aforesaid provisions of law.

6. I have given my earnest consideration to the facts of the case and am of opinion that looking to the nature of the offence and the character of the accused and also keeping in view the fact that the accused has been facing the trial since 1977, he should be given the benefit of Section 360 Cr. PC.

7. For the reasons mentioned above, I partly allow this revision petition. The conviction of the accused-petitioner is maintained, but instead of the sentence passed by the Courts below the accused-petitioner shall be released on probation, provided he executes a bond in the sum of Rs. 1000/-for maintaining the peace for six months and to be of good behaviour during this period. The bond shall be furnished to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 1985 Same Parties Ladu vs State of Rajasthan Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Vinod Snanker Dave, J.

Criminal Public prosecutor appellate court On behalf of trial court The State Has been