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.

Labh Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan

Labh Singh vs State of Rajasthan

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Nov 19, 1985
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/769431

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 No. 149 of 1979
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code - Section 360--Benefit of probation--ARMS ACT--Section 25(a)--Sentence--Accused found in possession of 25 cartridges in 1975--Not previous convict--Provisions of Section 360 & 361 not considered by both lower courts--Held, it would not be improper to release him on probation;Both the cour...

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Labh Singh

Respondent

State of Rajasthan

Legal References

Reported In
1985WLN(UC)421

Excerpt

criminal procedure code - section 360--benefit of probation--arms act--section 25(a)--sentence--accused found in possession of 25 cartridges in 1975--not previous convict--provisions of section 360 & 361 not considered by both lower courts--held, it would not be improper to release him on probation;both the courts below have not taken into consideration the mandatory provisions of section 360 or section 361, cr. pc. the accused was found in possession of 25 cartridges in 1975. no previous conviction stands at his discredit. looking to the facts, and circumstances of the case it would not be improper to release him on probation of good conduct.;revision partly allowed. - - he, therefore, submits that the accused should be released on probation of good conduct. it was also argued that the two courts below did not record reasons for not extending the benefit of the probation of good conduct to the accused as is required by section 360 and section 361 of the cr. pc lays down that when a person is convicted of an offence punishable with fine only or with imprisonment for a term of 7 years or less, he should be released on probation of good conduct unless there are cogent and convincing reasons for not doing so. looking to the facts and circumstances of the case it would not be improper to release him on probation of good conduct. 2,000/- with a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned chief judicial magistrate, barmer, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during a period of two years and in the mean time to keep peace and be of good behaviour......which may extend to three years or with fine or with both. section 360 cr. pc lays down that when a person is convicted of an offence punishable with fine only or with imprisonment for a term of 7 years or less, he should be released on probation of good conduct unless there are cogent and convincing reasons for not doing so. section 361 cr. pc lays down that in case the court does not proceed under section 360 cr. pc reasons must be recorded in writing. in the instant case both the courts below have not taken into consideration the mandatory provisions of section 360 and section 361 cr. pc the accused was found in possession of 25 carridges in 1975. no previous conviction stands at his discredit. looking to the facts and circumstances of the case it would not be improper to release him on probation of good conduct.4. in the result the revision of accused labh singh is partly allowed. his conviction under section 25(a) of the arms act is maintained but the sentences awarded to him are set aside. instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment it is hereby directed that he will be released on his entering into a bond for a sum of rs. 2,000/- with a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned chief judicial magistrate, barmer, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during a period of two years and in the mean time to keep peace and be of good behaviour. the accused is allowed two months time to submit the aforesaid bonds before the learned chief judicial magistrate, barmer.

Full Judgment

Shyam Sunder Byas, J.

1. Accused Labh Singh was convicted under Section 25(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 and was sentenced to six month's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer by his judgment dated April 19,1978. The accused went in appeal which was heard and decided on 1-6-1979 by the Sessions judge, Balotra. His appeal was dismissed and his conviction and sentence were maintained. The accused has come up in revision.

2. In view of the concurrent findings of both the courts below Mr. Singhi, learned counsel for the accused did not challenge his conviction. The only submission made by him is that no previous conviction stands to the discredit of the accused. Only 25 cartridges were found in his possession which could not be used without a firearm. Looking the manner in which the offence was found as proved, the sentence imposed on the accused is uncalled for. He, therefore, submits that the accused should be released on probation of good conduct. It was also argued that the two courts below did not record reasons for not extending the benefit of the probation of good conduct to the accused as is required by Section 360 and Section 361 of the Cr. PC.

3. In reply the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that since the offence is of serious nature no leniency in the matter of sentence is called for. The offence under Section 25(a) of the Arms Act is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both. Section 360 Cr. PC lays down that when a person is convicted of an offence punishable with fine only or with imprisonment for a term of 7 years or less, he should be released on probation of good conduct unless there are cogent and convincing reasons for not doing so. Section 361 Cr. PC lays down that in case the court does not proceed under Section 360 Cr. PC reasons must be recorded in writing. In the instant case both the courts below have not taken into consideration the mandatory provisions of Section 360 and Section 361 Cr. PC The accused was found in possession of 25 carridges in 1975. No previous conviction stands at his discredit. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case it would not be improper to release him on probation of good conduct.

4. In the result the revision of accused Labh Singh is partly allowed. His conviction under Section 25(a) of the Arms Act is maintained but the sentences awarded to him are set aside. Instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment it is hereby directed that he will be released on his entering into a bond for a sum of Rs. 2,000/- with a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during a period of two years and in the mean time to keep peace and be of good behaviour. The accused is allowed two months time to submit the aforesaid bonds before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial