Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Raj Singh @ Rajendra Singh vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:35392) on 6 August, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:35392]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 273/2008
Raj Singh @ Rajendra Singh son of Darshan Singh, Resident of
6B.B., Tehsil Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar.
[Lodged at District Jail, Sri Ganganagar]
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. DL Rawla.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Singh, PP.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
06/08/2025
1. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with
Section 401 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner against
the judgment dated 14.03.2008 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter
to be referred as 'the appellate court') in Criminal Appeal
No.07/2005, whereby the said appeal was dismissed and
judgment dated 11.03.2005 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar
(hereinafter to be referred as 'the trial court') in Criminal Case
No.335/1997 was upheld.
1.1. The accused petitioner was convicted and sentenced vide
judgment dated 11.03.2005 passed by the learned trial court as
below :-
[2025:RJ-JD:35392] (2 of 4) [CRLR-273/2008]
Conviction for Sentence Fine In default of
the offences Awarded Amount payment of fine
under Sections further undergo
3/25 (1-B) (A) 2 Years' Rigorous Rs.100/- 10 days' Simple
of Arms Act Imprisonment Imprisonment
2. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that on
14.05.1997, acting on secret information, the SHO of Police
Station Padampur reached the petitioner's house and saw two
persons standing outside. On seeing the police, the petitioner
allegedly threw away a bag and both individuals fled the scene.
Upon checking the bag, the police recovered a revolver and
cartridges.
2.1. An FIR No. 84/1997 was registered against the petitioner
under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. After investigation, a charge-
sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Padampur. Charges were framed under Section 3/25(1)(B)(A) of
the Arms Act. The petitioner denied the charges and claimed trial.
2.2. During the trial, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses. The
petitioner's statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded,
wherein he denied the allegations and claimed false implication.
No defence evidence was led.
2.3. After hearing final arguments, the learned trial court decided
the case vide judgment dated 11.03.2005 and convicted the
petitioner for the offence under Section 3/25(1-B)(A) of the Arms
Act. The petitioner preferred an appeal, which was also decided by
the Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur, vide judgment dated
14.03.2008, whereby the conviction and sentence awarded by the
trial court were affirmed.
[2025:RJ-JD:35392] (3 of 4) [CRLR-273/2008]
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
sentences so awarded to the petitioner were suspended by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.04.2008
passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Application for Suspension of
Sentences No.47/2008.
3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that
the petitioner has undergone detention for some period and the
case is pending against him since 2008. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has also 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 petitioner may be substituted with the period of sentences
already undergone by him.
4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the
submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. However, he was not
in a position to dispute the fact that the present revision petition is
pending since 2008.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
6. A perusal of the impugned judgments makes is manifest that
the alleged incident happened in the year 1997 and the present
revision petition is pending adjudication since 2008.
6.1. Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the cases 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 :
[2025:RJ-JD:35392] (4 of 4) [CRLR-273/2008]
Alister Anthony Pareira (supra) :
"84. ... ... ... 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) :
"4. ... ... ... 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..."
6.2. In the light of aforesaid discussion, precedent law and
keeping in view the limited prayer made on behalf of the
petitioner, the present revision petition is partly allowed.
6.3. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the
petitioner for the offences under Section 3/25 (1-B) (A) of Arms
Act, 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.
6.4. All pending applications are disposed of.
7. Record of the case be sent back to the learned court below
forthwith.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
10-/Jitender//-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
