Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shri Ram vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:20391) on 23 April, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:20391]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 856/2006
Shri Ram S/o Shri Kanhiaya Lal, R/o Pichupara Khurd Bandijui at
present Sri Ganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through PP.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Trilok Joshi.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Singh, PP.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
ORDER
23/04/2025
1. By way of filing the present revision petition, the petitioner-
accused has challenged the order dated 06.09.2006 passed by the
learned Sessions Judge No.1, Hanumangarh in Criminal Appeal
No.09/2003, wherein the order of conviction and sentence dated
30.04.1998 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Hanumangarh in Criminal Misc. Case No.112/1996 for
the offences under Sections 420, 467 and 468 IPC was altered to
the extent of sentences.
2. The learned trial vide order and judgment dated 30.04.1998,
convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner as below:-
Offence under Section Sentence
420 IPC Seven years' R.I. and a fine of
Rs.5000/-, and in default of payment
of fine to further undergo 2 months'
imprisonment.
467 IPC Seven years' R.I. and a fine of
Rs.5000/-, and in default of payment
of fine to further undergo 2 months'
imprisonment.
468 IPC Seven years' R.I. and a fine of
[2025:RJ-JD:20391] (2 of 5) [CRLR-856/2006]
Rs.5000/-, and in default of payment
of fine to further undergo 2 months'
imprisonment.
471 IPC Two years' R.I. and a fine of
Rs.5000/-, and in default of payment
of fine to further undergo 2 months'
imprisonment.
All sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
However, the learned appellate court vide order and
judgment dated 06.09.2006 upheld the conviction of the petitioner
but modified the sentences awarded to the petitioner by the
learned trial court as below:-
Offence under Section Sentence
420 IPC Three years' R.I. and a fine of
Rs.5000/-, and in default of payment
of fine to further undergo 2 months'
imprisonment.
467 IPC Three years' R.I. and a fine of
Rs.5000/-, and in default of payment
of fine to further undergo 2 months'
imprisonment.
468 IPC Three years' R.I. and a fine of
Rs.5000/-, and in default of payment
of fine to further undergo 2 months'
imprisonment.
All sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
3. As per the prosecution's story, on 10.03.1988, the chief
manager of Sahakari Samiti, Hanumangarh Town submitted a
written complaint before the Corruption Bureau, Hanumangarh
Town alleging inter alia that the Sahakari Samiti Hanumangarh
Town supplied fertilizers and urea of Rs.35604/- to Sunil Kumar
who was authorized by the Agriculture Research Sub-Centre,
Hanumangarh Town to receive the same. When the Sahakari
Samiti did not receive the payment of fertilizers, a letter was
issued to Agriculture Research Sub-Centre, Hanumangarh Town,
thereafter, it denied the fact of receiving any fertilizers vide letter
[2025:RJ-JD:20391] (3 of 5) [CRLR-856/2006]
dated 09.03.1988. On conducting an inquiry, Sahakari Samati
found that the petitioner along with one Vinod Kumar and his
brother-in-law Charandas and a few other persons had cheated
the Samiti of 55 bags of fertilizers and 213 bags of Urea, in total
worth Rs.35604/-.
4. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, a case was
registered against the accused- petitioner for the offences under
Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 419 of IPC and investigation was
commenced. During the course of investigation, the accused-
petitioner was arrested. After filing of the charge sheet and upon
completion of the trial, the petitioner was convicted by the learned
trial court below for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468
and 471 IPC vide judgment and order dated 30.04.1998. The
learned Appellate Court vide its order and judgment dated
06.09.2006 while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner
modified the extent of sentences awarded to him by the learned
trial Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that incident in
the present case relates to the year 1988. The petitioner does not
have any criminal antecedents. Learned counsel submitted that
the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case.
Learned counsel further submitted that there is no positive
evidence available on record indicating his guilt in commission of
the alleged crime.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
sentences so awarded to the revisionist-petitioner were suspended
by this Court, vide order dated 04.10.2006 in S.B.Cr. Misc. Bail
(Suspension of Sentences) Application No.250/2006 .
[2025:RJ-JD:20391] (4 of 5) [CRLR-856/2006]
7. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner in the alternative
submitted that the occurrence relates to the year 1988 and the
petitioner has already served some part of the sentences awarded
to him. The petitioner is facing agony of a long protracted trial and
therefore, the sentences awarded to him may be substituted with
the period of sentences already undergone by him.
8. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is
no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgments whatsoever
and therefore, the same do not call for any interference in
exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court. However, he was
not in a position to dispute the fact that the present revision
petition is pending since 2006.
9. Heard.
10. A perusal of the impugned judgments makes is manifest that
the alleged incident happened in the year 1988 and the present
revision petition is pending adjudication since 2006. The record of
the case indicates that petitioner had already undergone detention
for some period and since the case is pending before this Court
since 2006, the petitioner had suffered both financial hardships
and mental agony.
11. The Hon'ble 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:
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
[2025:RJ-JD:20391] (5 of 5) [CRLR-856/2006]
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..."
12. In the light of aforesaid discussion and precedent law, the
alternative prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that since the petitioner had undergone detention for some period,
thus, without making any interference on merits/conviction, the
sentences awarded to the present petitioner may be substituted
with the period of sentences already undergone by him, deserves
acceptance.
13. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the
petitioner for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471
of IPC, the sentences awarded to him are hereby reduced to the
period already undergone by him. The petitioner is on bail. He
need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.
14. All pending applications (if any) also stand disposed of
accordingly.
15. Record of the case be sent back to the learned court below
forthwith.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
20-himanshu/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
