Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jalam Singh vs State Of Raj on 10 May, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 210/2001
Jalam Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chakravarti Singh for
Mr. Pradeep Shah
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
10/05/2022
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
1998 and the present criminal revision has been pending since the
year 2001.
3. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with
Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment
dated 24.03.2001 passed by learned District & Sessions Judge,
Rajsamand in Criminal Appeal No.82/99, whereby the judgment
dated 16.11.1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge & Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhim in Criminal Case No.212/1998,
convicting the revisionist-petitioner was upheld. The petitioner was
convicted for the offences under Section 10(6) Rajasthan Bovine
(Downloaded on 17/05/2022 at 08:07:28 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLR-210/2001]
Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary
Migration or Export) Act, 1995 and was sentenced to undergo two
years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.2000/- in default of payment of which,
he was ordered to undergo further fifteen days R.I.
4. Vide order dated 24.03.2001 the sentenced awarded to
petitioner was reduced to one year's S.I. and a fine of Rs. 5000/-
for the offence under Section 10(1) Rajasthan Bovine Animal
(Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary Migration or
Export) Act, 1995.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner further submits
that the sentence so awarded to the petitioner was suspended by
this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 24.04.2001 passed in S.B.
Criminal Application for Suspension of Sentence No.37/2001.
6. 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.
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
(Downloaded on 17/05/2022 at 08:07:28 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLR-210/2001]
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..."
9. 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 petitioners for the offences under
Section 10(1) Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter
and Regulation of Temporary Migration or Export) 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.
10. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the
learned court below be sent back forthwith.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
56-nirmala/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
