Devendra Kumar Gaur vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:27089)
2023 Latest Caselaw 6236 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:27089]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 309/2003

Devendra Kumar Gaur S/o Shri Madan Gopal Gaur, by caste Brahmin, resident of Plot No.33, Nandpuri, Sodala, Jaipur

----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nishant Bora For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati, P.P.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

23/08/2023

1. By way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition

challenge has been made to the judgment dated 01.04.2003

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Chittorgarh

in Criminal appeal No.35/2003, whereby the learned appellate

court affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence

dated 13.09.2000 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Chittorgarh in Criminal Original Case No.85/1991; whereby the

petitioner has been convicted and sentenced as under :-

Offence for which Sentence, fine and default sentence convicted Section 409 IPC 2 years' simple imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo simple imprisonment of 3 months Section 467 IPC 2 years' simple imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo simple imprisonment of 3 months Section 468 IPC 1 year's simple imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo simple imprisonment of 3 months

[2023:RJ-JD:27089] (2 of 6) [CRLR-309/2003]

2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for

disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 07.10.1988

complainant Chairman, Chittorgarh Regional Rural Bank, Devpura,

Bundi submitted a written report at the Police Station Vijaypur to

the effect that in the Vijaypur Branch of the bank, there was a

bank account No.63 in the name of Satyanarayan. Petitioner

Devendra Kumar was posted as Branch Manager in the said

branch from 05.04.1985 to 19.01.1988. It was alleged that on

verification of the accounts, it was revealed that an overdraft had

been paid in account No.63, upon which the account holder

Satyanarayn was called, who denied withdrawing any excess

amount. He also denied the signatures on the withdrawal form

and stated that there is no such entry in his passbook. He

claimed that he did not come to the Branch on the relevant day,

whereas entries were made in withdrawal form and cash register

by the accused in the capacity of passing officer. It was alleged

that the accused did not enter this payment in record and

committed embezzlement of Rs.2,000/-. On the basis of the

aforesaid report, FIR No.99/1988 for the offences under Sections

468, 420, 467 and 408 of the IPC was registered and after usual

investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner

in the competent court.

3. The Learned Magistrate framed charges against the

petitioner for the offences under Sections 409, 467 and 468 of the

IPC and upon denial of guilt by him, commenced the trial. During

the course of trial, the prosecution in order to prove the offences,

[2023:RJ-JD:27089] (3 of 6) [CRLR-309/2003]

examined as many as 6 witnesses and exhibited various

documents. The accused, upon being confronted with the

prosecution allegations, in his statement under Section 313 CrPC,

denied the allegations and claimed to be innocent. No evidence

was adduced in defence. Then, after hearing the learned Public

Prosecutor and the learned Defence Counsel and upon meticulous

appreciation of the evidence, learned trial court convicted and

sentenced the petitioner in the manner stated above vide

judgment dated 13.09.2000 and the appeal preferred against the

said judgment also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated

01.04.2003. Hence, this revision petition is filed before this court.

4. After arguing the case on merits to some extent, learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he will not assail

conviction of the petitioner and confines his arguments to the

alternative prayer of reduction of the sentence awarded by the

trial court. He submits that the incident in the present case

pertains to the year 1987. The petitioner was aged 31 years of

age at that time. He was not having any criminal antecedents and

it was the first criminal case registered against him. No adverse

remark has been passed over his conduct except the impugned

judgment. The petitioner has already suffered agony of protracted

trial of 35 years. He remained in custody for some time during

trial and for some time after passing the judgment in appeal.

With these submissions, learned counsel prays that by taking a

lenient view, the sentence awarded to the petitioner may be

reduced to the period already undergone.

[2023:RJ-JD:27089] (4 of 6) [CRLR-309/2003]

5. Learned public prosecutor has, of course, been able to

defend the case on merits but does not refute the fact that it was

the first criminal case registered against the petitioner and he had

no criminal antecedents as well as the fact that he has remained

behind the bars for some time during trial and after passing of the

judgment in appeal.

6. Since the revision petition against conviction is not pressed

and after perusing the material, nothing is noticed which requires

interference in the finding of guilt reached by learned trial court

and affirmed by the appellate court, this court does not wish to

interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment

of conviction is maintained.

7. As far as the question of quantum of sentence in concerned,

it is worthwhile to note that the occurrence in this case pertains to

the year 1987. The right to speedy and expeditious trial is one of

the most valuable and cherished rights guaranteed under the

Constitution. The petitioner has already suffered the agony of

protracted trial, spanning over a period of more than 35 years and

has been in the corridors of the court for this prolonged period.

He was 31 years at the time of the incident and at present he is

66 years old. It was the first criminal case registered against him.

He has not been shown to be indulged in any other criminal case

except this one. He remained incarcerated for some time during

trial and some time after passing of the judgment in appeal. He

is living peacefully for last more than 2 decades as no report

contrary to that has been received by this court. The reformative

[2023:RJ-JD:27089] (5 of 6) [CRLR-309/2003]

theory of punishment is in vogue in our country and it appears

that the petitioner has been reformed and no fruitful purpose

would be served by sending him to jail at this stage specially

looking to his old age. In view of the facts noted above, the case

of the petitioner deserves to be dealt with leniency. The petitioner

also deserves the benefit of the consistent view taken by this

court in this regard. Thus, guided by the judicial pronouncements

made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Haripada

Das Vs. State of West Bangal reported in (1998) 9 SCC 678

and Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra

reported in 2012 2 SCC 648 and considering the facts and

circumstances of the case, age of appellant, his criminal

antecedents, his status in the society and the fact that he faced

financial hardship and had to go through mental agony, this court

is of the view that ends of justice would be met, if sentence

imposed upon the petitioner for each count is reduced to the one

already undergone by him.

8. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 13.09.2000

passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh in

Criminal Original Case No.85/1991 as well as the judgment in

appeal dated 01.04.2003 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge No.2, Chittorgarh in Criminal appeal No.35/2003

are affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded by the learned

trial court for each count, i.e. Sections 409, 467 and 468 of the

IPC, is modified to the extent that the sentence he has undergone

till date would be sufficient and justifiable to serve the interest of

[2023:RJ-JD:27089] (6 of 6) [CRLR-309/2003]

justice. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail

bonds are discharged.

9. The revision petition is allowed in part. Pending applications,

if any, are disposed of.

10. Record be sent back.

(FARJAND ALI),J 17-Pramod/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)