Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Purkha Ram vs State (2024:Rj-Jd:24623) on 29 May, 2024
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2024:RJ-JD:24623]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 682/2004
Purkha Ram S/o Deda Ram R/o Village Kitnoriya, District Barmer.
(At present lodged at Central Jail, Jodhpur) ----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan ----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
29/05/2024
1. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner
challenging the judgment dated 21.09.2004 passed in Cr. Appeal
No.17/2002 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer
(hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') by which the
appellate court while dismissing the petitioner's appeal, upheld the
judgment dated 20.05.2002 passed in Cr. Case No.270/1996 by
learned Judicial Magistrate, Barmer (hereinafter referred to as 'the
trial court') whereby, the learned trial court convicted the present
petitioner for offence under Section 471 IPC and sentenced him to
undergo six months' S.I. and imposed a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in
default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days' S.I.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 05.01.1996, PW.4 - Ratan
Lal sent a written report at Police Station Dhorimana alleging that
the accused-petitioner Purkha Ram was appointed as an EDMC at
village Bhuniya on 01.07.1965. At the time of appointment, the
accused petitioner had submitted a forged transfer certificate of
class 5th passed from Govt. Primary School, Kitnoria, Dhakon ka
Tala, Chohtan. Upon enquiry, it was found that the accused-
[2024:RJ-JD:24623] (2 of 3) [CRLR-682/2004]
petitioner neither took admission nor studied in the aforesaid
school. Upon said report, the Police registered a case against the
accused-petitioner and commenced investigation.
3. On completion of investigation, the Police filed challan for the
offence punishable under Section 471 IPC before the concerned
court. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charges for offence
under Section 471 IPC against the petitioner who pleaded not
guilty and claimed trial.
4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as 7 witnesses in support of its case. Thereafter, statements of the
accused-petitioner under section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded.
5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 20.05.2002 convicted and sentenced
the accused-petitioner for aforesaid offence.
6. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the
petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court,
which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 21.09.2004.
Hence, this revision petition against the conviction and sentence of
the accused-petitioner.
7. At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner
submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but
since the occurrence is related to the year 1996 and out of total
sentence of six months' S.I., the accused petitioner has already
served about 13 days of imprisonment, therefore, it is prayed that
the sentence awarded to the petitioner for the aforesaid offence
may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-
[2024:RJ-JD:24623] (3 of 3) [CRLR-682/2004]
petitioner and submitted that there is neither any occasion to
interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused petitioner nor
any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case.
9. I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as
defence and the judgment passed by the courts below regarding
conviction of the accused-petitioner.
10. Undisputedly, the incident relates back to the year 1996 and
the petitioner has so far undergone a period of about 13 days in
custody out of six months' of total sentence, so also suffered the
agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all
circumstances and the fact that the petitioner has remained
behind the bars for some time, it will be just and proper, if the
sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Section 471
IPC and affirmed by the appellate court is reduced to the period
already undergone by the petitioners.
11. Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. While
maintaining the petitioner's conviction for offence under Section
471 IPC, the sentence awarded to him for the aforesaid offence is
hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The fine imposed
by the trial court is hereby waived. The petitioner is on bail. He
need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged. Pending
applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
12. The record of trial Court as well as the appellate court be
sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
105-Rashi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
