Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ram Ji Bhai Bechar Bhai Patel vs State on 12 May, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 527/2001
Ram Ji Bhai Bechar Bhai Patel
----Petitioner
Versus
State
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chakravarti Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. AR Choudhary, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
12/05/2022
1. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year
1981 and the present criminal revision has been pending since the
year 2001.
2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with
Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment
dated 31.08.2001 passed by learned Special Judge, Scheduled
Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Udaipur
in Criminal Appeal No.2/1999 whereby the judgment dated
28.10.1998 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Udaipur in Regular Criminal Case No.507/97 convicting the
revisionist-petitioner was upheld. The petitioner was convicted and
sentenced as under:-
Section Sentence
Section 18(a) (vi) & 18(c) read One year' S.I. and a fine of
with Section 27 of the Drugs Rs.500/-, in default of payment
and Cosmetic Act, 1940. of fine to further undergo
fifteen day S.I.
(Downloaded on 17/05/2022 at 08:26:25 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLR-527/2001]
Section 18(a) read with Section Six months' S.I. and a fine of
28 of the Drugs and Cosmetic Rs.250/-, in default of payment
Act, 1940. of fine to further undergo seven
days S.I.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner further submits
that the sentence so awarded to the revisionist-petitioners was
suspended by this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 16.10.2001
passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail (SOS) No.119/2001.
4. 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.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.
6. 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
(Downloaded on 17/05/2022 at 08:26:25 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLR-527/2001]
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..."
7. 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
Sections 18(a) (vi) & 18(c) read with Section 27 and Section 18(a)
read with Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940, 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.
8. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the
learned below be sent back forthwith.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
58-Sudheer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
