Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Harnek Singh vs State And Anr on 7 May, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 604/2002
Harnek Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Anr
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kapil Bissa on behalf of
Mr. Ranjeet Joshi, Sr. Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan, P.P.
Mr. D. Kaushik
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
07/05/2022
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. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year
1995 and the present criminal revision has been pending since the
year 2002.
3. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with
Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment
dated 21.08.2000 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Hanumangarh in criminal case No.61/1996 whereby the judgment
dated 12.06.2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge,
No.2, Hanumangarh in criminal appeal No.01/2001 (49/2000)
convicting the revisionist-petitioner was upheld. The petitioner was
(Downloaded on 11/05/2022 at 08:30:56 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLR-604/2002]
convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act and was sentenced to undergo 01 year's S.I.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner further submits
that the sentence so awarded to the revisionist-petitioner was
suspended by this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 16.09.2002
passed in S.B. Criminal Bail Application No.128/2002.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner, however,
makes a limited submission that without making any interference
on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present
revisionist-petitioner may be substituted with the period of
sentence already undergone by him.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.
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
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
(Downloaded on 11/05/2022 at 08:30:56 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLR-604/2002]
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 conviction of the petitioner for the offences under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the sentence
awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by
him. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail
bonds stand discharged accordingly.
9. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the
learned court below be sent back forthwith.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
49-KshamaD/nirmala-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
