Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sunil Kumar @ Langda vs State on 18 May, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 3) [CRLR-329/2001]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 329/2001
Sunil Kumar @ Langda
----Petitioner
Versus
State
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sangram Singh (Amicus Curiae)
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anita, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
18/05/2022
1. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year
1992 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 13.06.2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge
No.1, Jodhpur in Criminal Appeal No.11/99, whereby the judgment
dated 05.10.1996 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.) &
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilara in Criminal Original Case
No.2/96, convicting the revisionist-petitioner was upheld. The
petitioner was convicted for the offences under Sections 407 IPC
and sentenced to undergo two years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000/-
in default of payment of which, he was ordered to undergo further
six months' R.I. Vide the impugned judgment dated 13.06.2001
though the judgment of learned trial court to the extent of Section
407 of IPC was affirmed, the same was modified to the extent that
(Downloaded on 20/05/2022 at 08:25:39 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLR-329/2001]
the petitioner was sentenced to undergo one year's R.I. and a fine
of Rs.1000/-in default of payment of which, he was ordered to
undergo further six months S.I.
3. 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 20.06.2001 in
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail No.65/2001.
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 20/05/2022 at 08:25:39 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLR-329/2001]
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 offence under
Section 407 IPC, 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.
37-Zeeshan
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
