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.

Ladur Vs. State of Rajasthan

Ladur vs State of Rajasthan

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Mar 11, 1986
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/769731

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. Cr. Jail Rev. No. 45 of 1985
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Penal Code - Sections 457 and 380--Sentence--Substantive sentences should run concurrently and also to run concurrently with sentence awarded in 2 other cases.;The two substantive sentences awarded by the petitioner Ladura in Criminal original case No. 111/82 shall be concurrent and further these sentences shall als...

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ladur

Respondent

State of Rajasthan

Legal References

Reported In
1986WLN(UC)599

Excerpt

penal code - sections 457 and 380--sentence--substantive sentences should run concurrently and also to run concurrently with sentence awarded in 2 other cases.;the two substantive sentences awarded by the petitioner ladura in criminal original case no. 111/82 shall be concurrent and further these sentences shall also run concurrently with the sentences awarded to him in criminal original cases no. 62/82 and 75/85 which have already been made concurrent by the judgment dated 12-7-85.;revision partly accepted - kishore singh lodha, j.1. the record has already been received, and therefore, the filing of the certified copy of the judgment of the judicial magistrate, abu road is dispensed with.2. i have heard the learned amicus curiae and learned public prosecutor.3. the only contention raised before may by the learned amicus curiae is that the two substantive sentences awarded to the accused ladura under sections 457 and 380 ipc may be made concurrent and these sentences should also be made concurrent with the other sentences awarded to him in criminal original cases no. 62/82 and 75/82 as had been done in the case of the co-accused udiya by this court in s.b. criminal revision no. 157/85 decided on 12-7-85. udiya'e case is similar to that of the present appellant ladura. the case of udiya has already been discussed and decided by this court in its judgment dated 12-7-85 and it is proper that the same treatment is meted out to this petitioner also.4. i, therefore, partly accept this revision and direct that the two substantive sentences awarded to the petitioner ladura in criminal original case no. 111/82 shall be concurrent and further these sentences shall run concurrently with the sentences awarded to him in criminal original cases no. 62/82 and 75/82 which have already been made concurrent by the judgment dated 12-7-85.

Full Judgment

Kishore Singh Lodha, J.

1. The record has already been received, and therefore, the filing of the certified copy of the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate, Abu Road is dispensed with.

2. I have heard the learned Amicus Curiae and learned Public Prosecutor.

3. The only contention raised before may by the learned Amicus Curiae is that the two substantive sentences awarded to the accused Ladura under Sections 457 and 380 IPC may be made concurrent and these sentences should also be made concurrent with the other sentences awarded to him in Criminal original cases No. 62/82 and 75/82 as had been done in the case of the co-accused Udiya by this court in S.B. Criminal Revision No. 157/85 decided on 12-7-85. Udiya'e case is similar to that of the present appellant Ladura. The case of Udiya has already been discussed and decided by this court in its judgment dated 12-7-85 and it is proper that the same treatment is meted out to this petitioner also.

4. I, therefore, partly accept this revision and direct that the two substantive sentences awarded to the petitioner Ladura in Criminal original case No. 111/82 shall be concurrent and further these sentences shall run concurrently with the sentences awarded to him in criminal original cases No. 62/82 and 75/82 which have already been made concurrent by the judgment dated 12-7-85.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial