LexSTATE OF RAJASTHAN versus SALMAN SALIM KHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2015]2S.C.R.16 STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. SALMAN SALIM KHAN (Criminal Appeal No. 83 of 2015) JANUARY 14, 2015 [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.397 - Conviction of respondent uls. 51 of Wild Life Protection Act and sentence C for 5 years - High Court on revision suspends the sentence with liberty to travel abroad- Visa rejected by UK. Authorities on account of conviction order - Prayer for suspension of order of conviction - Allowed by High Court - Challenge against - Held: If an order of conviction in any manner is D causing irreversible consequences or injustice to the respondent, it is open to the court to consider the same - No such ground was shown by the High Court while passing the impugned order - Matter remitted to High Court to decide matter afresh. E Disposing of the appeal and remitting the matter to the High Court, the Court HELD: 1. The High Court stayed the order of conviction mainly on the ground that the conviction is F coming in respondent's way to travel abroad which has resulted in negating the order granting him permission to go abroad. If some foreign country authority is not granting permission to visit the said country on the ground that the respondent has been convicted of an G offence and has been sentenced for five years of imprisonment under the Indian Law, the said order cannot be a ground to stay the order of conviction. If an order of conviction in any manner is causing irreversible consequences or injustice to the respondent, it was H 16 STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. SALMAN SALIM KHAN 17 open to the court to consider the same. If the court A comes to a definite conclusion that the irreversible consequences/injustice would cause to the accused which could not be restored, it was well within the domain of the court to stay the conviction. No such ground was shown by the High Court while passing the impugned B order. Further, now more than one year has passed and there was nothing to suggest that the respondent has again to visit UK for further shooting of any film/movie. [Paras 11 and 12] [24-H; 25-A-D] State of Tamil Nadu v. A. Jaganathan 1996 (5) SCC 329: C 1996 (3) Suppl. SCR 572; Ravikant s. patil v. Sarvabhouma s. Bagali 2001 (1) sec 673: 2006 (8) Suppl. SCR 1156 - relied on. Case Law Reference 1996 (3) Suppl. SCR 572 relied on. Para 9 2006 (8) Suppl. SCR 1156 relied on. Para 10 D CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 83 of 2015 E From the Judgment and Order dated 12.11.2013 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No. 718 of 2013 in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 905 of 2007 F V. Prakash, S. S. Shamshery, AAG, Varun Punia, Harshwardhan Rathor, Kushboo Arora, lshu Prayas, Ruchi Kohli for the Appellant. Sidharth Luthra, Arjun Harkauli, Balbir Singh, Udita Singh, G Angad Singh for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1. Leave granted. H 18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 2 S.C.R. A 2. This appeal has been preferred by the State against the final judgment and order dated 12th November. 2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.718 of 2013 in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.905 of 2007. By the B impugned judgment. the High Court allowed the prayer for suspension of order of conviction dated 10th April, 2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate during the pendency of the revision petition on the ground that the order of conviction is c coming in the way of respondent to travel abroad. 3. The factual matrix of the case is as follows:- Crime No. IR No.163of1998 u/s 147, 148 and 149 of IPC and u/s 9,39,51 and 52 of the \tVild Life (Protection Act), 1972 and Section 27 of the Arms Act was registered against the D respondent, pursuant to which the respondent was arrested on 12th October, 1998. Thereafter, Criminal Case No.206 of 1999 was registered and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur vide order dated 10th April, 2006 convicted the respondent u/ s 51 of the Wild Life (Protection Act), 1972 and sentenced E him to undergo simple imprisonment for five years alongwith a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of conviction and F sentence, the respondent preferred an
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.