Dwarka Lal vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:32207)
2023 Latest Caselaw 7736 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:32207]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
             S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 596/2002

Dwarka Lal s/o Girdhari Lal, r/o 18E/86 Choupasani Housing
Board, Jodhpur.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State of Rajasthan.
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr.IR Choudhary.
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr.Mukhtiyar Khan, P.P.



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

                                    ORDER

27/09/2023

This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with

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

26.7.2002 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Deedwana in

Cr.Appeal No.23/1999 (5/1996) whereby the judgment dated

4.4.1996 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Deedwana in Cr.Original Case No.580/1992 was upheld and the

petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 409 IPC and

sentenced to suffer six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of

Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo ten

days' simple imprisonment.

The record of the case file shows that the petitioner was

appointed on the post of Senior Assistant/ Lipik at Bangar

Hospital, Deedwana and was working as a cashier at the Hospital

from 01.04.1984 to 09.08.1989. An enquiry was conducted by a

special team comprising of one Jawaharlal Gagal, Assistant

[2023:RJ-JD:32207] (2 of 3) [CRLR-596/2002]

Accounts Officer, and it was found that the petitioner had

misappropriated an amount to the tune of Rs.35,098/-. The

petitioner was convicted by learned court below vide judgment

dated 04.04.1996. The appeal preferred against judgment dated

04.04.1996 was rejected by appellate court vide judgment dated

26.07.2002.

Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner submitted that

the sentences so awarded to the revisionist-petitioner were

suspended by this Court, vide order dated 1.8.2002.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner had undergone detention for some period and the case

is pending against him since 1992. 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 2002.

Heard.

A perusal of the impugned judgments makes is manifest that

the alleged incident happened in the year 1990 and the present

revision petition is pending adjudication since 2002.

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:32207] (3 of 3) [CRLR-596/2002]

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 409 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)