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.

Daulatram and Others Vs. the State of Rajasthan.

Daulatram and Others vs The State of Rajasthan.

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Jul 29, 2011
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/920682

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. 894 of 2011
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 147, 323, 341, 336, 504; Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - Section 4, 12

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Daulatram and Others

Advocate Mr. N.S. Dhakad, Adv

Respondent

The State of Rajasthan.

Advocate Ms. Rekha Madnani, Adv

Legal References

Acts
Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 147, 323, 341, 336, 504; Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - Section 4, 12

Excerpt

.....the act of 1958, but petitioner no. 2, amar singh is a government servant and his conviction may not be treated as disqualification, therefore, the petitioners have preferred this revision petition with a prayer that it may be clarified that as per section 12 of the act of 1958, conviction of petitioners may not be treated as disqualification. 4. i have considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined impugned judgments passed by both the courts below. 5. section 12 of the act of 1958 is reproduced as under: “12. removal of disqualification attaching to conviction.-notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under the provisions of section 3 or section 4 shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law: provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a person who, after his release under section 4 is subsequently sentenced for the original offence.” 6. the above provision of law makes it clear that a person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under the provisions of section 3 or section 4 shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law, therefore, there is no need of any clarification in this regard.  if the petitioners are entitled for the benefit of section 12 of the act of 1958, then the same may be given to them. 7. with the aforesaid observation, revision petition stands disposed off.

Full Judgment

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioners, namely Daulatram, Amar Singh, Ramswaroop, Jaidev and Mohar Singh were convicted and sentenced by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Weir, District Bharatpur, vide judgment and order dated 16.09.2009 passed in Criminal Case No. 424/2007, under Section 147, 323, 341, 336 and 504 IPC.  They preferred an appeal, which was partly allowed by learned appellate court, i.e. Additional District and Sessions Judge, No. 2, Bayana, vide judgment and order dated 01.07.2011 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 34/2009.  Their conviction and sentence under Sections 336 and 341 IPC were set aside, but their conviction under Sections 323, 147 and 504 IPC, passed by trial court was affirmed.  However, sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial court were set aside and they were given benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958(for short 'the Act of 1958').

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that although appellate court has already set aside order of sentence of imprisonment of the petitioners and they have been given the benefit of Section 4 of the Act of 1958, but Petitioner No. 2, Amar Singh is a Government servant and his conviction may not be treated as disqualification, therefore, the petitioners have preferred this revision petition with a prayer that it may be clarified that as per Section 12 of the Act of 1958, conviction of petitioners may not be treated as disqualification.

4. I have considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined impugned judgments passed by both the courts below.

5. Section 12 of the Act of 1958 is reproduced as under:

“12. Removal of disqualification attaching to conviction.-Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under the provisions of section 3 or section 4 shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law:

Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a person who, after his release under Section 4 is subsequently sentenced for the original offence.”

6. The above provision of law makes it clear that a person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under the provisions of Section 3 or Section 4 shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law, therefore, there is no need of any clarification in this regard.  If the petitioners are entitled for the benefit of Section 12 of the Act of 1958, then the same may be given to them.

7. With the aforesaid observation, revision petition stands disposed off.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial