Bhanwar Lal vs Stateof Raj
2023 Latest Caselaw 7087 Raj

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 7087 Raj
Judgement Date : 12 September, 2023

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Bhanwar Lal vs Stateof Raj on 12 September, 2023

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2023:RJ-JD:29051]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
             S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 296/2001

Bhanwarlal @ Bhanwar Singh s/o Mohanlal Nagarchi, r/o Kadua
Ka Dhada, P.S. Sayara, District Udaipur (Rajasthan).
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
State of Rajasthan.
                                                                  ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)           :    Mr.Shambhoo 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

27.4.2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2,

Udaipur in Cr.Appeal No.8/2000 whereby the judgment dated

9.9.1999 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Kherwada in

Cr.Original Case No.609/95 was upheld and the petitioner was

convicted and sentenced as below:

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

Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further under undergo 4 months' rigorous imprisonment.

From the perusal of the record of the case file, it is evident

that the complainant filed a written report stating inter alia that on

19.08.1995, when the complainant was visiting Rishabhdev, the

petitioner who used to work for the complainant stole Rs.73,400/-

[2023:RJ-JD:29051] (2 of 3) [CRLR-296/2001]

from the boot of the complainant's Scooter. The petitioner was

tried for the offences by competent criminal court and convicted

vide judgment dated 9.9.1999, which came to be upheld by

appellate court vide judgment dated 27.4.2001.

Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner submitted that

the sentences so awarded to the revisionist-petitioner were

suspended by this Court, vide order dated 11.6.2001 passed in

S.B. Criminal Suspension of Sentences (Bail) Application

No.54/2001.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner had undergone detention for some period and the case

is pending against him since 1995. 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 2001.

Heard.

A perusal of the impugned judgments makes is manifest that

the alleged incident happened in the year 1995 and the present

revision petition is pending adjudication since 2001.

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

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

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

pleased to observe as under:

[2023:RJ-JD:29051] (3 of 3) [CRLR-296/2001]

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 381 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.