Sukhdevsingh vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:28648)
2023 Latest Caselaw 6237 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:28648]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 254/2003

Sukh Dev Singh S/o Bhagat Singh, resident of Kera, P.S. Lalgarh, District Sri Ganganagar

----Petitioner Versus The State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.L. Rawla 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 06.03.2003

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Sri

Ganganagar in Criminal Appeal No.74/2000, whereby the learned

appellate court affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence dated 14.10.1997 passed by learned Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Original Case

No.204/1987; whereby the petitioner has been convicted and

sentenced as under :-

Offence for Sentence, fine and default sentence which convicted Section 408 IPC 1 year's rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.15,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo simple imprisonment of 3 months Section 477A IPC 1 year's rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo simple imprisonment of 3 months

[2023:RJ-JD:28648] (2 of 6) [CRLR-254/2003]

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

disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 25.02.1983 at

03.15 p.m., Assistant Executive Officer, The Ganganagar, Central

Cooperative Bank Limited, Sri Ganganagar submitted a written

report at the Police Station Sadar, Sri Ganganagar to the effect

that accused Sukh Dev Singh, while working as Manager, Gram

Seva Sahakari Samiti, District Sri Ganganagar from 04.12.1980 to

26.10.1981, made embezzlement of Rs.28,237.58 and used the

same for his own cause. On the basis of the aforesaid report, FIR

No.31/1983 was registered for the offences under Sections 408,

420 and 477A of the IPC and after usual investigation, a charge-

sheet was submitted against the petitioner for the above offences.

3. The Learned Magistrate framed charges against the

petitioner for the offences under Sections 408 and 477A 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,

examined as many as 23 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 14.10.1997 and the appeal preferred against the

[2023:RJ-JD:28648] (3 of 6) [CRLR-254/2003]

said judgment also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated

06.03.2003. 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 occurrence in the present case

pertains to the year 1980-81. The petitioner was aged 20 years

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 40 years. He remained in custody for some time during

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

living peacefully since last four decades, thus, no fruitful purpose

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

looking to his age. 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.

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.

[2023:RJ-JD:28648] (4 of 6) [CRLR-254/2003]

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 1980-81. The petitioner was 20 years of age at that time

and at present he is 62 years old. The trial took more than 10

years in culmination and the appeal took further 6 years in

decision. Thereafter, this appeal is pending before this court for

last more than two decades. 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 40

years and has been in the corridors of the court for this prolonged

period. 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 after passing of the judgment in appeal. He is living

peacefully for last many decades as no report contrary to that has

been received by this court. The reformative theory of

punishment is in vogue in our country and it appears that the

petitioner has been reformed and no fruitful purpose would be

[2023:RJ-JD:28648] (5 of 6) [CRLR-254/2003]

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 petitioner, 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 14.10.1997

passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri

Ganganagar in Criminal Original Case No.204/1987 as well as the

judgment in appeal dated 06.03.2003 passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Appeal

No.74/2000 are affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded by

the learned trial court for each count, i.e. Sections 408 and 477A

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 justice. However, he shall deposit the fine amount, if

has not been already deposited. The petitioner is on bail. He

need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged.

[2023:RJ-JD:28648] (6 of 6) [CRLR-254/2003]

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

if any, are disposed of.

10. Record be sent back to the trial court.

(FARJAND ALI),J 15-Pramod/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)