Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Amar Singh vs State on 10 May, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 4) [CRLR-429/2002]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 429/2002
Amar Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 381/2002
Shri Amer Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chakravarti Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
10/05/2022
S.B. Criminal Jail Revision No. 381/2002
This is By post matter received from Jail by the same
accused-Amar Singh against same impugned orders dated
09.05.2002 & 22.10.2001. Thus, there being multiplicity of
petition, the same is dismissed.
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.429/2002
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.
(Downloaded on 17/05/2022 at 08:07:32 PM)
(2 of 4) [CRLR-429/2002]
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 09.05.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Nathdwara in Criminal Appeal No.55/2001, whereby the judgment
dated 22.10.2001 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Nathdwara in Criminal Case No.1/1996, convicting the
revisionist-petitioner was upheld. The petitioner was convicted for
the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A of IPC and
Section 134/187 of Motor Vehicle Act and sentenced as under:-
(sentences will concurrently)
304-A IPC : 01 year's SI and a fine of Rs.5000/-
in default of payment of fine to
further undergo 02 months SI.
279 IPC : 03 months' SI and a fine of Rs.500/-
in default of payment of fine to
further undergo 07 days SI.
134/187
M.V. Act : 01 month's SI and a fine of Rs.100/-
in default of payment of fine to
further undergo 02 days SI.
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 02.07.2002
passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.70/2002.
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.
(Downloaded on 17/05/2022 at 08:07:32 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLR-429/2002]
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
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 offence under
Sections 304-A, 279 IPC and Section 134/187 of Motor Vehicle
(Downloaded on 17/05/2022 at 08:07:32 PM)
(4 of 4) [CRLR-429/2002]
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 below be sent back forthwith.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
59-60 nirmala/Sanjay-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
