Surndra Singh vs State
2023 Latest Caselaw 4038 Raj

[2023/RJJD/013171]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
             S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 674/2002

Surindra Singh S/o Ramchander, By Caste Rajput, R/o Ummed
Chowk, Gol Nadi, Jodhpur.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State Of Rajasthan
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)         :     Ms. Yogita Mohnani
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Abhishek Purohit, AGA



               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

                                     Order

ORDER RESERVED ON                       :::                      02/05/2023
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON                     :::                      04/05/2023


BY THE COURT:-

1. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year

1993 and the present petition criminal revision has been pending

since the year 2002.

2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with

Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner

against the judgment dated 03.08.2002 passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Jodhpur in Criminal Appeal

No.10/2002, whereby the judgment dated 11.02.2002 passed by

the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & Judicial Magistrate

No.4, Jodhpur in Criminal Case No.471/2001 (446/95), convicting

the petitioner was affirmed. The petitioner was convicted for the

offence under Sections 409, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC and was

[2023/RJJD/013171] (2 of 5) [CRLR-674/2002]

sentenced to undergo 3 years' simple imprisonment for each

offence along with fine of Rs.5,000/- for each offence and in

default in payment of fine to undergo further 2 months simple

imprisonment.

3. Bereft of elaborated details, the brief facts necessary for

disposal of the criminal revision petition are that on 09.09.1993,

Superintendent, Post Office, Jodhpur has submitted a written

report at the Police Station Sadar Kotwali, Jodhpur alleging inter

alia that on 02.12.1989, petitioner Surendra Singh issued National

Saving Certificate for six years in favour of Dhanraj Bhansali and

after his demise, the amount of NSC was to be paid to Smt.

Chhagni Devi W/o late Dhanraj Bhansali. Smt. Chhagni Devi made

a complaint to the Superintendent, Post Office that the amount of

Rs.16,080/- which includes principal amount of Rs.13,000/-

towards NSC and Rs.3080 towards interest has not been paid to

her. Upon which, FIR No.160/1993 was registered at the Police

Station Sadar, Kotwali, Jodhpur. After investigation, the police filed

challan against the present petitioner for offence under Sections

409, 467 & 468 of the IPC. Thereafter, the charges of the case

were framed.

4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 9

witnesses and 15 documents were also exhibited. Thereafter,

statement of petitioner under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded. He

denied the allegation levelled against him and claimed for trial. No

evidence has been produced on behalf of the accused-petitioner.

[2023/RJJD/013171] (3 of 5) [CRLR-674/2002]

5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide

impugned judgment dated 11.02.2002 convicted the petitioner for

offence under Sections 409, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC and

sentenced as aforesaid, which was affirmed by the learned

appellate Court vide order dated 03.08.2002. Hence, this revision

petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner

has remained in custody for a period of 8 months and 6 days.

Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has already

paid Rs.20,000/- to Smt.Chhagni Devi and as the incident took

place way back in the year 1993, ends of justice would be served

by reducing the sentences awarded to the petitioner to the period

already undergone by him.

7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the

submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner

but does not rebut the fact that the matter incident happened in

the year 1993 and he has already paid Rs.20,000/- to Smt.

Chhagni Devi.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as

learned Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the material

available on record.

9. After carefully gone through the material available on record

and considering the overall facts and circumstances this Court

feels that lenient view has been taken by the learned trial Court

because the alleged incident occurred in the year 1993 and the

petitioner has already paid the amount of Rs.20,000/- to Smt.

[2023/RJJD/013171] (4 of 5) [CRLR-674/2002]

Chhagni Devi and he has remained in custody for a period of 8

months and six days.

10. This Court is conscious regarding 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..."

11. 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

[2023/RJJD/013171] (5 of 5) [CRLR-674/2002]

Sections 409, 467, 468 and 471 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.

12. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the

learned court below be sent back forthwith.

(FARJAND ALI),J 114-Mamta/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)