Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sunil Verma And Ors vs State on 13 May, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 3) [CRLR-645/1999]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 645/1999
Sunil Verma And Ors
----Petitioner
Versus
State
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vineet Jain Sr. Advocate assisted
by Mr. Pravin Vyas
For Respondent(s) : Mr. AR Choudhary, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
13/05/2022
1. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year
1988 and the present criminal revision has been pending since the
year 1999.
2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with
Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment
dated 15.09.1999 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge
No.3, Udaipur in Criminal Appeal No.8/1999, whereby the
judgment dated 20.02.1999 passed by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Udaipur in Criminal Case No.139/1990, convicting the
revisionist-petitioners was upheld. The petitioners were convicted
for the offences under Sections 33 EEC (b) & 33 I (2) of the Drugs
and Cosmetics Articles Act.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioners further
submits that the sentence so awarded to the revisionist-
(Downloaded on 17/05/2022 at 08:38:54 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLR-645/1999]
petitioners was suspended by this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated
17.09.1999.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioners, however,
makes a limited submission that without making any interference
on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present
revisionist-petitioners may be substituted with the period of
sentence already undergone by them.
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
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
petitioners, and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent
(Downloaded on 17/05/2022 at 08:38:54 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLR-645/1999]
laws, the present petition is partly allowed. Accordingly, while
maintaining the conviction of the petitioners for the offences under
Sections 33 EEC (b) & 33 I (2) of the Drugs and Cosmetics
Articles Act, as above, the sentence awarded to them is reduced
to the period already undergone by them. The petitioners are on
bail. They need not surrender. Their 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.
42-Sudheer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
