Shrilal vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:34571)
2023 Latest Caselaw 7853 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:34571]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
             S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 385/2003

Shrilal s/o Bhagwania r/o Dudhi Talai, PS Vijaypur, Tehsil &
District Chittorgarh.
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
State of Rajasthan.
                                                                  ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)           :    Mr.Abhishek Charan.
For Respondent(s)           :    Mohd.Javed Gauri, P.P.



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

                                     ORDER

04/10/2023

This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with

401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated

18.4.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1,

Chittorgarh in Cr.Appeal No.11/2003 whereby the judgment dated

13.10.2000 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate

No.1, Chittorgarh in Cr.Original Case No.2101/1993 was upheld

and the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as below:

Conviction for offences                               Sentences
under Sections:
457 IPC              One year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of

Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment.

380 IPC One year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment.

Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

The record of the case file shows that the a report was

lodged at PS Kotwali, Chittorgarh on 29.03.1992 that when he

[2023:RJ-JD:34571] (2 of 3) [CRLR-385/2003]

came to his house, he found that the door of his house was

broken. It was alleged by him that gold and silver ornaments kept

inside the house had been stolen. The investigating agency after

conducting investigation, arrested the petitioner. The petitioner

who was convicted by learned court below for the offences alleged

against him, vide judgment dated 13.10.2000 which was upheld

by appellate court vide judgment dated 18.4.2003.

Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner submitted that

the sentences so awarded to the revisionist-petitioner were

suspended by this Court, vide order dated 17.7.2003 in S.B.Cr.

Misc. Bail (Suspension of Sentences) Application No.85/2003.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner had undergone detention for some period and the case

is pending against him since 2003. Learned counsel for the

petitioner submitted that the petitioner is facing agony of a long

protracted trial and therefore, without making any interference on

merits/conviction, the sentences awarded to the present

revisionist-petitioner may be substituted with the period of

sentences already undergone by him.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made on

behalf of the petitioner. However, he was not in a position to

dispute that the present revision petition is pending since 2003.

Heard.

A perusal of the impugned judgments makes is manifest that

the alleged incident happened in the year 1992 and the present

revision petition is pending adjudication since 2003.

Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Alister

Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012)2 SCC 648

[2023:RJ-JD:34571] (3 of 3) [CRLR-385/2003]

and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. (1998)9 SCC 678,

pleased to observe 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..."

In the light of aforesaid discussion, precedent law and

keeping in view the limited prayer made on behalf of the

revisionist-petitioner, the present revision is partly allowed.

Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the

petitioner for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 IPC, the

sentences awarded to him are reduced to the period already

undergone by him. The petitioner is on bail. He need not

surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.

All pending applications stand disposed of.

Record of the case be sent back to the learned court below

forthwith.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J /tarun goyal/

Sr.No.7

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)