1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1866 OF 2011 RAJU @ RAJINDER APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA RESPONDENT(S) ORDER 1. The appellant-accused has assailed the judgment and order dated 06.09.2007 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 930-SB of 2002, whereby the High Court has dismissed the appeal of the appellant alongwith the other appeals and maintained the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court had convicted the appellant- accused alongwith the other accused for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) and imposed punishment to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years, and pay fine of Rs.500/- in default thereof to undergo further imprisonment for a period of one month. The Trial Court had also convicted him for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a period of three years and pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default thereof to undergo further imprisonment for one month. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2 2. Vide the order dated 11.07.2011, this Court had issued notice confining it only to the quantum of sentence. 3. On 17.08.2023, learned counsel for the respondent-State sought time to enquire about the post-bail conduct of the appellant as also about his criminal antecedents. Today, learned counsel for the respondent-State has fairly submitted that there are no criminal antecedents against him. He also submitted that there is nothing on record to show that there was any violation of the conditions of bail on which he was released. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the incident is of 19.01.2001, i.e., more than 22 years old and appellant has already undergone more than three years of sentence. It is further submitted that he is the only breadwinner in the large family, which he has to maintain. 4. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the fact that the appellant has no criminal antecedents; and that the incident is 22 years old, we are of the opinion that interest of justice would be met if the sentence imposed on appellant is reduced from seven years to five years for the offence under Section 395 of the IPC. Rest of the impugned judgment shall remain unchanged. 5. The appellant being on bail, shall surrender before the Trial Court within two weeks from today for serving out the remaining period of sentence. 6. In view of the above, the appeal stands partly allowed.
3 7. The learned counsel Mr. Gaurav Agrawal states that he was assigned this matter by the legal aid committee. Hence a copy of this order be communicated to appellant through the Trial Court and through the police station concerned. 8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. ……………………………………….J. [BELA M. TRIVEDI] ……………………………………….J. [DIPANKAR DATTA] NEW DELHI; AUGUST 23, 2023.
4 ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.15 SECTION II-B S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No(s). 1866/2011 RAJU @ RAJINDER Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA Respondent(s) Date : 23-08-2023 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA For Appellant(s) Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Arun Kumar, Adv. Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is partly allowed in terms of the signed order. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (POOJA SHARMA) (R.S. NARAYANAN) COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (Signed order is placed on the file)
ITEM NO.103 COURT NO.15 SECTION II-B S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No. 1866/2011 RAJU @ RAJINDER Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA Respondent(s) Date : 17-08-2023 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA For Appellant(s) Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Arun Kumar, Adv. Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Learned counsel for the respondent-State seeks time to enquire about the post-bail conduct of the appellant – Raju @ Rajinder, as also, his criminal antecedents, if any. In view of the request made, list on 23.08.2023. (DEEPAK GUGLANI) (R.S. NARAYANAN) AR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(ITEM NO.44 REGISTRAR COURT.1 SECTION IIB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 1866 OF 2011 BEFORE THE REGISTRAR SANJIV JAINRAJU @ RAJINDER Appellant (s) VERSUSSTATE OF HARYANA Respondent(s)(With office report)Date: 20/02/2014 This Appeal was called on for hearing today.For Appellant(s) Mr.Gaurav Agrawal,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The learned counsel for the respondent submits that he does not wishto file additional documents. The matter falls under the complete category. List before the Hon'ble Court, as per rules.| | | (SANJIV JAIN) || | |REGISTRAR || | | |rd
ôITEM NO.68 COURT NO.11 SECTION IIB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).5126/2011(From the judgement and order dated 06/09/2007 in CRLA No.930-SB/2002 of The HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)RAJU @ RAJINDER Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF HARYANA Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for bail and office report)Date: 26/09/2011 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASOK KUMAR GANGULY HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GYAN SUDHA MISRAFor Petitioner(s) Mr.Gaurav Agrawal,Adv.For Respondent(s) Mr. Manjit Singh, Addl. A.G. Mr. Tarjit Singh, Adv. Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Leave granted. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to grant bail to the appellant. The prayer for bail is allowed. The appellant be released on bail on furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. (G.SUDHAKARA RAO) (VINOD KULVI) Court Master Court Master
˜ITEM NO.25 COURT NO.7 SECTION IIB S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl)... 2011 CRLMP.NO(s). 12154(From the judgement and order dated 06/09/2007 in CRLA No.930/2002 of The HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)RAJU @ RAJINDER Petitioner(s) VERSUSSTATE OF HARYANA Respondent(s)With CRLMP 12154/2011 (C/delay in filing SLP and c/delay inrefiling SLP)Date: 11/07/2011 This Petition was called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARJIT SINGH BEDI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GYAN SUDHA MISRAFor Petitioner(s) Mr.Gaurav Agrawal, Adv.(SCLSC)For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R As this is a legal aid matter, we condone the delay in filing the Special Leave Petition. Issue notice confined to the quantum of sentence only returnable within four weeks. Notice may also be effected on the Standing Counsel for the State of Haryana.[KALYANI GUPTA] [VINOD KULVI] COURT MASTER COURT MASTER