Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mehboob Khan vs State on 6 April, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 525/2008
Mehboob Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
State
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 526/2008
Mehboob Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
State
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. N.L. Joshi.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Bhati, PP.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
06/04/2022
1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID - 19 cases and spread
of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being
maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety
of all concerned.
2. These criminal revision petitions under Section 397 read with
Section 401 Cr.P.C. have been preferred claiming the following
reliefs:
"It is therefore most respectfully prayed that revision
petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed by
(Downloaded on 07/04/2022 at 08:26:30 PM)
(2 of 4) [CRLR-525/2008]
quashing and setting aside the sentence passed by the
courts below."
3. The matters pertain to an incident which occurred in the year
2001 and the present revision petitions have been pending since
the year 2008.
4. In Criminal Revision Petition No.525/2008, the learned
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Churu vide judgment dated
14.02.2007, convicted the accused-petitioner for the offence
under Section 279 IPC and sentenced him to undergo three
months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/-; for the
offence under Section 337 IPC and sentenced him to undergo one
month simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/-; for the offence
under Section 304A IPC and was sentenced to undergo six months
simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000/-; total fine amount
Rs.6500/-; in default of payment of total fine amount, he was
ordered to undergo three months simple imprisonment. However,
on appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Churu vide
judgment dated 29.05.2008, the petitioner was acquitted of the
offence under Section 337 IPC, with the further observation that
offence under Section 279 IPC is included in Section 304A IPC.
Thus, the conviction of the petitioner was maintained by the
learned Appellate Court to the extent of Section 304A IPC only
and was sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment with
a fine of Rs.5000/-,, in default of payment of fine he was ordered
to further undergo three months simple imprisonment.
5. In Criminal Revision Petition No.526/2008, the learned
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Churu vide order of conviction and
sentence dated 15.02.2007, convicted the accused-petitioner for
the offence under Section 279 IPC and sentenced him to undergo
(Downloaded on 07/04/2022 at 08:26:30 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLR-525/2008]
three months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/-; for
the offence under Section 337 IPC and sentenced him to undergo
one month simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/-; for the
offence under Section 304A IPC and was sentenced to undergo six
months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000/-; total fine
amount Rs.6500/-; in default of payment of total fine amount, he
was ordered to undergo three months simple imprisonment.
Appeal preferred there against by the learned appellate court was
dismissed.
6. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner, however, makes
a limited submission that without making any interference on
merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present accused-
petitioner may be substituted with the period of sentence already
undergone by him.
7. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in,
Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2
SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. (1998) 9 SCC
678 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-
Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra)
"There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused
on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain
principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is
deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the
ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of
each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of
the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all
other attendant circumstances."
Haripada Das (Supra)
"...considering the fact that the respondent had already
undergone detention for some period and the case is
(Downloaded on 07/04/2022 at 08:26:30 PM)
(4 of 4) [CRLR-525/2008]
pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered
both financial hardship and mental agony and also
considering the fact that he had been released on bail as far
back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice will
be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to
the period already undergone..."
8. In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the
petitioner, and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent
laws, the present petition is partly allowed. Accordingly, while
maintaining the petitioner's conviction under Section 279, 337 &
304-A IPC as above, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to
the period already undergone by him. The petitioner is on bail, in
pursuance of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court on
03.06.2008 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.115/2008 (in
Revision Petition No.525/2008), whereby the sentenced awarded
to him was suspended. He need not surrender. His bail bonds
stand discharged. All pending applications stand disposed of.
Record of the learned below be sent back forthwith.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
46-47-SKant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
