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.

Rajesh Kumar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Rajesh Kumar vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Apr 28, 2011
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/919166

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
Allahabad High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1759/2010
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Criminal

Key legal issue
Criminal
Acts & sections
Indian Penal Code (IPC) - section 414

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rajesh Kumar

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Legal References

Acts
Indian Penal Code (IPC) - section 414

Excerpt

.....property. first  information report, ex.p/2, of the incident was lodged  by haripratap singh (p.w.2). the stolen coal along  with his truck was seized from the possession of  applicant vide seizure memo ex.p/3. haripratap singh  (p.w.2) has testif ied that applicant was voluntarily  assisting in making away with coal which he had  reason to believe to be stolen property. nothing has  been brought out in the cross-examination of  haripratap singh (p.w.2) to discredit his evidence. 5. in view of the ample evidence on record against  the applicant, his learned counsel has not pressed  this revision on merit.  the conviction of applicant  under section 414 of the indian penal code is,  therefore, hereby af f irmed. 6. so f ar as the question of sentence is concerned, the applicant has already undergone more than 7  months and 15 days of the jail sentence.  there is  nothing on record to suggest that he is a habitual  offender. on due consideration of the totality of  circumstances, i am of the considered opinion that he  deserves a chance to reform himself . i am, therefore,  of the view that the interest of justice would be met  by awarding a sentence for the period already  undergone by the applicant for an of fence under  section 414 of the indian penal code. the sentence of  fine is, however, aff irmed. 7. with the above modification in the sentence, the revision is partly allowed.

Full Judgment

1. With the consent of learned counsel for parties,  the case is finally heard.

This revision is directed against the judgment  dated 13.10.2010 passed in Criminal Appeal  No.169/2007 by the Additional Sessions Judge,  Singrauli, whereby he has dismissed the appeal of the  applicant.

2. The trial court convicted the applicant for an  offence under section 414 of the Indian Penal Code  and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and f ine of Rs.500/- or in default of payment of fine  to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for three  month.  

3. The applicant is a truck driver. 

4. The prosecution case that has been proved  against the applicant is that he voluntarily assisted in 2 making away with 17.8 tons of coal which he had  reason to believe to be stolen property. First  information report, Ex.P/2, of the incident was lodged  by Haripratap Singh (P.W.2). The stolen coal along  with his truck was seized from the possession of  applicant vide Seizure memo Ex.P/3. Haripratap Singh  (P.W.2) has testif ied that applicant was voluntarily  assisting in making away with coal which he had  reason to believe to be stolen property. Nothing has  been brought out in the cross-examination of  Haripratap Singh (P.W.2) to discredit his evidence.

5. In view of the ample evidence on record against  the applicant, his learned counsel has not pressed  this revision on merit.  The conviction of applicant  under section 414 of the Indian Penal Code is,  therefore, hereby af f irmed.

6. So f ar as the question of sentence is concerned, the applicant has already undergone more than 7  months and 15 days of the jail sentence.  There is  nothing on record to suggest that he is a habitual  offender. On due consideration of the totality of  circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that he  deserves a chance to reform himself . I am, therefore,  of the view that the interest of justice would be met  by awarding a sentence for the period already  undergone by the applicant for an of fence under  section 414 of the Indian Penal Code. The sentence of  fine is, however, aff irmed.

7. With the above modification in the sentence, the revision is partly allowed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial