Sadhu Singh vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:28545)
2023 Latest Caselaw 6937 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:28545]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
             S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 284/2001

Sadhu Singh s/o Sita Ram, r/o village Thandewala, Ex-Salesman,
Co-operative Society, Gajsinghpur, District Sriganganagar.
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
State of Rajasthan
                                                                   ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)           :    Mr.N.L.Joshi with
                                 Ms.Kirti Pareek.
For Respondent(s)           :    Mr.Mahipal Bishnoi, P.P.



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

                                     ORDER

06/09/2023

This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with

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

23.4.2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Srikaranpur, District Sriganganagar in Cr.Appeal No.66/1997

whereby the judgment dated 21.5.1994 passed by learned Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Padampur in Cr.Original Case No.107/87

was upheld.

The petitioner was convicted and sentenced as below:

Conviction for offences                               Sentences
under Sections:
408 IPC              2 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of

Rs.3000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further under undergo 3 months imprisonment.

From the perusal of record of the case file, it is revealed that

the petitioner had been working in the Gaj Singhpur Cooperative

Society since 1974 and was posed at Janta Shop on 01.05.1981.

[2023:RJ-JD:28545] (2 of 3) [CRLR-284/2001]

It was alleged by the complainant that the petitioner while

working at Janta Shop, was embezzling funds from the shop. The

petitioner was convicted for offence under Section 408 IPC by

learned court below vide order dated 21.5.1994 which was uphled

by appellate court vide order dated 23.4.2001.

A perusal of the judgments impugned makes it evident that

the present matter pertains to an incident which happened in the

year 1986 and the present revision petition has remained pending

since 2001.

Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner further

submitted that the sentences so awarded to the revisionist-

petitioner were suspended by this Court, vide order dated

28.5.2001 passed in S.B. Criminal Suspension of Sentences (Bail)

Application No.49/2001.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner had undergone detention for some period and the case

is pending against him since 1987. It was thus submitted that the

petitioner is suffering agony of a long protracted trial. It was

submitted that 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. Learned Public Prosecutor however was

not in a position to dispute the fact that the present revision

petition has been pending since 2001.

[2023:RJ-JD:28545] (3 of 3) [CRLR-284/2001]

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

Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2012)

2 SCC 648 pleased to observe as under:

"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."

A similar view was expressed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in

the case of Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. reported in

(1998)9 SCC 678.

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 offence under Section 408 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.2

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)