Kalu Ram vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:29874)
2023 Latest Caselaw 7125 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:29874]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
             S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 340/2001

Kalu Ram S/o Jogaram B/c Meghwal, R/o Santhu, Tehsil and
District Jalore.
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State Of Rajasthan
                                                                  ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr. S.G. Ojha
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. Abhishek Purohit, AGA-cum-PP



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

                                     Order

DATE OF ORDER                           :::                      13/09/2023

BY THE COURT:-

1. By way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition

challenge has been made to the judgment dated 18.06.2001

passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore in Criminal Appeal

No.44/1997, whereby the learned appellate court affirmed the

judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.05.1997

passed by learned Civil Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore

in Criminal Original Case No.01/1994; whereby the petitioner has

been convicted under Section 408 IPC and sentenced to undergo

one year's rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.11,000/-

and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo simple

imprisonment of six months simple imprisonment.

2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for

disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 20.08.1993,

[2023:RJ-JD:29874] (2 of 5) [CRLR-340/2001]

complainant Ramesh Kumar Goyal submitted a written report at

the Police Station Jalore alleging inter alia that accused Kalu Ram,

while working as a Manager, Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Jalore

from 01.07.1983 to 30.06.1986, made embezzlement of

Rs.15,187.61/- and used the same for his own cause. On the

basis of the aforesaid report, Case No.206/1993 was registered

for the offences under Section 408 of the IPC and after usual

investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner

for the above offences.

3. The Learned Magistrate framed charges against the

petitioner for the offences under Section 408 of the IPC and upon

denial of guilt by him, commenced the trial. During the course of

trial, the prosecution in order to prove the offence, examined as

many as 7 witnesses and exhibited various documents. The

accused, upon being confronted with the prosecution allegations,

in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, denied the allegations

and claimed to be innocent. No evidence was adduced in defence.

Then, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned

Defence Counsel and upon meticulous appreciation of the

evidence, learned trial court convicted and sentenced the

petitioner in the manner stated above vide judgment dated

30.05.1997 and the appeal preferred against the said judgment

also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 18.06.2001.

Hence, this revision petition is filed before this court.

[2023:RJ-JD:29874] (3 of 5) [CRLR-340/2001]

4. After arguing the case on merits to some extent, learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he will not assail

conviction of the petitioner and confines his arguments to the

alternative prayer of reduction of the sentence awarded by the

trial court to the period already undergone by him. He submits

that the occurrence in the present case pertains to the year 1993.

The petitioner was aged 35 years at that time. He was not

having any criminal antecedents and it was the first criminal case

registered against him. No adverse remark has been passed over

his conduct except the impugned judgment. The petitioner has

already suffered agony of protracted trial of 30 years. He

remained in custody for some time during trial and some time

after passing of the judgment in appeal. He is living peacefully

since last three decades, thus, no fruitful purpose would be served

by sending him to jail at this stage specially looking to his age.

With these submissions, learned counsel prays that by taking a

lenient view, the sentence awarded to the petitioner may be

reduced to the period already undergone.

5. Learned public prosecutor has, of course, been able to

defend the case on merits but does not refute the fact that it was

the first criminal case registered against the petitioner and he had

no criminal antecedents as well as the fact that he has remained

behind the bars for some time during trial and after passing of the

judgment in appeal.

6. Since the revision petition against conviction is not pressed

and after perusing the material, nothing is noticed which requires

interference in the finding of guilt reached by learned trial court

[2023:RJ-JD:29874] (4 of 5) [CRLR-340/2001]

and affirmed by the appellate court, this court does not wish to

interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment

of conviction is maintained.

7. As far as the question of quantum of sentence in concerned,

it is worthwhile to note that the occurrence in this case pertains to

the year 1993. The petitioner was 35 years of age at that time

and at present he is 65 years old. The trial took more than 10

years in culmination and the appeal took further 6 years in

decision. Thereafter, this appeal is pending before this court for

last more than three decades. The right to speedy and

expeditious trial is one of the most valuable and cherished rights

guaranteed under the Constitution. The petitioner has already

suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of

more than 30 years and has been in the corridors of the court for

this prolonged period. It was the first criminal case registered

against him. He has not been shown to be indulged in any other

criminal case except this one. He remained incarcerated for some

time during trial and after passing of the judgment in appeal. He

is living peacefully for last many decades as no report contrary to

that has been received by this court. The reformative theory of

punishment is in vogue in our country and it appears that the

petitioner has been reformed and no fruitful purpose would be

served by sending him to jail at this stage specially looking to his

old age. In view of the facts noted above, the case of the

petitioner deserves to be dealt with leniency. The petitioner also

deserves the benefit of the consistent view taken by this court in

this regard. Thus, guided by the judicial pronouncements made

[2023:RJ-JD:29874] (5 of 5) [CRLR-340/2001]

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Haripada Das Vs.

State of West Bangal reported in (1998) 9 SCC 678 and

Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra reported in

2012 2 SCC 648 and considering the facts and circumstances of

the case, age of petitioner, his criminal antecedents, his status in

the society and the fact that he faced financial hardship and had

to go through mental agony, this court is of the view that ends of

justice would be met, if sentence imposed upon the petitioner for

each count is reduced to the one already undergone by him.

8. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 30.05.1997

passed by learned Civil Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore

in Criminal Original Case No.1/1994 as well as the judgment in

appeal dated 18.06.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge,

Jalore in Criminal Appeal No.44/1997 are affirmed but the

quantum of sentence awarded by the learned trial court for each

count, i.e. Section 408 of the IPC, is modified to the extent that

the sentence he has undergone till date would be sufficient and

justifiable to serve the interest of justice. However, he shall

deposit the fine amount, if has not been already deposited. The

petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are

discharged.

9. The revision petition is allowed in part. Pending applications,

if any, are disposed of.

10. Record be sent back to the trial court.

(FARJAND ALI),J 10-Mamta/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)