Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Gajendra Singh vs State on 20 April, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 427/1998
Gajendra Singh
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Tejmal Ranka for
Mr. KS Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
20/04/2022
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. This criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been
preferred claiming the following reliefs:
"It is, therefore, prayed that this appeal may kindly be
accepted and setting aside the conviction and sentence
of the appellant he be acquitted."
3. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year
1990 and the present appeal has been pending since the year
1998.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this Criminal
Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated
22.06.1998 passed by the learned Special Judge, Essential
(Downloaded on 21/04/2022 at 08:16:46 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLA-427/1998]
Commodities Act, Pali in Special Criminal Case No.05/1990
whereby the appellant was convicted for the offences under
Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act and sentenced to undergo
three months S.I. and a fine of Rs.500/- default of payment of
which he was ordered to further undergo one month S.I.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the
sentence so awarded to the appellant was however suspended by
this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 10.07.1998 passed in S.B.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.341/1998.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, makes a limited
submission that without making any interference on
merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present appellant
may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone
by him.
7. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.
8. 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 21/04/2022 at 08:16:46 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLA-427/1998]
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..."
9. In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the appellant,
and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, the
present appeal is partly allowed. Accordingly, while maintaining
the appellant's conviction under Section 3/7 Essential
Commodities Act, as above, the sentence awarded to him is
reduced to the period already undergone by him. The appellant is
on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged
accordingly.
10. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the
learned court below be sent back forthwith.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
59-nirmala/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
