Shrikailash Chandra vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:28513)
2023 Latest Caselaw 6938 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:28513]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
              S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 83/2001

Shrikailash Chandra S/o Shri Pyar Chandra, resident of Gandhi
Nagar, Bhilwara, District Bhilwara.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State of Rajasthan
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr.Ravindra Singh.
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

3.2.2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special

Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act Cases, Bhilwara in Cr.Appeal No.43/2000 whereby

the judgment dated 28.11.1997 passed by learned Additional

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur in Cr.Original Case No.497/91

convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 411 IPC and

sentencing him to suffer 6 months' rigorous imprisonment, was

upheld.

From the perusal of the case file, it reveals that on the

midnight of 02.01.1987, complainant Mohan Lal lodged an FIR

alleging that his storage boxes which contained silver and gold

jewellery along with some other valuable items had been stolen by

unidentified persons. The stolen items were recovered at the

[2023:RJ-JD:28513] (2 of 3) [CRLR-83/2001]

instance of the petitioner, who was convicted by learned court

below for the offences alleged against him, vide judgment dated

28.11.1997 which was upheld by appellate court vide judgment

dated 3.2.2001.

A perusal of the orders impugned makes it evident that the

present matter pertains to an incident which happened in the year

1987 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

8.2.2001 passed in S.B. Criminal Suspension of Sentences (Bail)

Application No.17/2001.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner had undergone detention for some period and the case

is pending against him since 1991 and therefore, the petitioner is

suffering agony of a long protracted trial. It was thus 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.

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:28513] (3 of 3) [CRLR-83/2001]

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 offence under Section 411 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.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J /tarun goyal/

Sr.No.1

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)