LexDAYA SINGH LAHORIYA @ RAJEEV SUDAN @ VINAY KUMAR versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
DAY A SINGH LAHORIY A @RAJEEV SUDAN@ VINA Y KUMAR
~·
v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
MAY 14, 2007
B
[C.K. THAKKER AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.]
Administration of criminal justice-Cognate matter decided against
f
th¢ accused-In the present matter since the accused has already undergone
)..
c
imprisonment for the period sentenced, no useful purpose would be served
by entering into the merits of the matter.
In the present appeal, the appellant has challenged his conviction and
sentence whereby he has been ordered to undergo imprisonment for seven
years. It was contended that the appellant has already remained in jail for
D seven years.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
~
HELD : In the light of the finding recorded by this Court in the cognate
matter, this appeal is, more or less, academic and has become infructuous in
E view of the circumstances that the appellant has been convicted for an offence
punishable under section 364 A IPC and has been ordered to undergo sentence
of imprisonment for life and said order has been upheld; and that in the present
appeal, the appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence whereby he
has been ordered to undergo imprisonment for seven years. The appellant
F
has l'.emained in jail for seven years and the said period is over.
[Para 15] (498-D-E]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 728 of
2007.
G
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 06.12.2005 of the High Court
of Judicature of Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in S.B. Criminal Appeal No.
332 of20G5.
/ ...._
Sushi! Kumar, Kamini Jaiswal, Dasvir Singh Dalee, Shomila Bakshi, Sunita
,.,.
Dwivedi, Vinay Arora and Sudarshan Singh Ravat for the Appellant.
--...,
H
494
)
T
)
DAYA SINGHLAHORIYA@RAJEE\ [email protected]. STATEOFRAJASTHAN [C.K. THAKKER,J.J 495
Milind Kumar (for Aruneshwar Gupta), Addi. Adv. General for the A
Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
C.K. THAKKER, J. I. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated B
December 6, 2005 passed by a Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature
for Rajasthan (Jaipur Bench) in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 332 of2005. By the
said order, a Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the
appellant herein who had been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge
(Fast Track Court) No.I, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Session Case No. 27 of2003. C
3. It is not necessary to set out facts in detail since we have stated all
_the facts in Criminal Appeal No. 867 of 2006 (Suman Sood@ Kamal Jeet
Kaur v. State of Rajasthan) and a cognate matter which we have decided
today. Suffice it to state that a complaint being First Information Report (FIR)
No. 84 of 1995 was registered at Malviya Nagar Police Station, Jaipur on D
February 26, 1995 against Daya Singh, appellant herein, Suman Sood@Kamal
Jeet Kaur (accused No.2) and one Hamek Singh @ Surender Verma
(absconding) for offences punishable under Sections 353, 420, 468, 471, 472,
473, 474 read with Section 1208 Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), for
offences punishable under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act; E
1908, Sections 7 and 25 of Arms Act, 1959 and Section 18 of TADA etc.
4. The case of the prosecution was that the appellant herein along with
his wife Suman Sood @ Kamal Jeet Kaur fabricated Registration Certificate
for purchasing several vehicles in order to carry out conspiracy of kidnapping
and abducting one Rajender Mirdha, son of Shri Ram Niwas Mirdha to exert p
pressure on the Government of India to release one Devendra Singh Bhullar,
an alleged Khalistani terrorist who was being held in custody by the police.
It was also alleged that the appellant was found to be in possession of
prohibited arms and ammunition allegedly recovered from House No. B-117,
Model Town, Ashok Nagar during police raid where the appellant was staying.
5. Initially, prosecution was launched in the Designated Court at Ajmer
since the provisions of TADA were also invoked. The appellant herein,
however, challenged his prosecution under TADA. In Daya Singh Lahoria
v. Union of India & Ors., [200 I] 4 SCC 516, this Court upheld the challenge
since the prosecution of the accused could only be maintained in accordance
G
H
496
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007] 6 S.C.R.
A with the Extradition Treaty and the Decree of Extradition under which the
accused were extradited by the United States of America toExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.