[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ajij Ali vs Chandra Avtar And Ors. ... on 8 December, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:53502]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 274/1993
State Of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
1. Chandra Avtar S/o Ramavtar R/o Gaziyabad, UP
2. Shri Abdul Salem S/o Latif Khan, R/o Gajrola District
Muradabad
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 78/1989
Ajij Ali S/o Fazal Ali Syed R/o
Badi Khatu, District Nagaur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Chandra Avtar S/o Ramavtar R/o Gaziyabad, UP
2. Shri Abdul Salem S/o Latif Khan, R/o Gajrola District
Muradabad
3. The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati}
Mr. Ravindra Bhati} AGA
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Soni
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Judgment / Order
REPORTABLE
08/12/2025
1. These two matters i.e., the appeal preferred by the State
seeking enhancement of the sentence awarded by the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur in Criminal Case No.4/85, and
the revision petition instituted by the complainant for the very
same relief, have remained pending before this Court for a
(Uploaded on 15/12/2025 at 12:09:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53502] (2 of 7) [CRLA-274/1993]
considerable length of time, i.e., since the years 1989 and 1993
respectively. Both proceedings emanate from the same judgment
and arise out of the same transaction between the same set of
parties. The issues involved in both matters are thus common and
interrelated, and the learned counsel representing the respective
parties in both proceedings are also the same. In view of the
identical factual background, common questions of law, and with
the express consent of the parties, this Court deemed it
appropriate to hear both matters together. Accordingly, both the
State appeal and the complainant's revision petition are being
disposed of by this common order.
2. The prosecution case originated from an FIR (Ex. B-17)
lodged at the instance of complainant Ajit Ali, alleging that the
accused-respondents induced him into believing that they would
arrange his immigration to a foreign country through a smooth
process and would procure all necessary documentation including
passport and visa. It was alleged that relying upon these
assurances, the complainant paid ₹13,000/- to the accused for
securing the requisite documents for a promised foreign trip. The
FIR further narrates the manner in which the complainant
accompanied the accused and followed their directions. It also
alleges similar fraudulent acts committed upon 13 other persons,
resulting in monetary loss to them. The grievance expressed was
that the promised work relating to passport, visa, and immigration
was never completed and the amount collected was never
returned. At one stage, it was alleged that certain amounts and
articles were forcibly taken, aggravating the accusations.
(Uploaded on 15/12/2025 at 12:09:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53502] (3 of 7) [CRLA-274/1993]
2.1. On this information, a case was registered for offences under
Sections 420, 392, and 120-B IPC. The accused were arrested,
investigated, and charge-sheeted. Upon cognizance, charges
under Sections 420, 392, 120-B, 468, 467 and 471 IPC were
framed. During trial, the prosecution examined 26 witnesses and
exhibited several documents. The accused were examined under
Section 313 CrPC. In defence, two witnesses were examined.
2.2. Upon a comprehensive appreciation of the oral as well as
documentary evidence adduced during the course of trial, the
learned Trial Court, namely the Court of the Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur, vide its judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 08.11.1988 passed in Criminal Case No.
4/85, recorded findings of guilt against the respondents and
proceeded to convict and sentence them in the manner indicated
hereinbelow:
Name of the Offence for Substantive Fine and default
accused which sentence sentence
convicted
Abdul Salim 420 IPC 3 years' RI Fine of Rs.1,000/-
468/471 IPC 1 year's RI Fine of Rs.500/-
392 IPC 6 months' RI Fine of Rs.500/- and
in default in payment
of fine to undergo
six month's SI
Chandra Avtar 420 r.w. 120-B 3 years' RI Fine of Rs.1000/-
IPC and in default in
payment of fine to
undergo six month's
SI
It was further directed that accused Abdul Salam shall
undergo the aforesaid sentences separately and the period already
spent by him in police and judicial custody during investigation
and trial shall be set off against the substantive sentence. The trial
(Uploaded on 15/12/2025 at 12:09:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53502] (4 of 7) [CRLA-274/1993]
Court acquitted both the accused from the charge under Sections
467, 468 and 466 of the IPC.
2.3. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant-State has
preferred an appeal, and the complainant has filed a criminal
revision petition, both seeking enhancement of the sentence
awarded to the accused. These proceedings have given rise to the
present appeal by the State and the revision petition by the
complainant.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at
considerable length and have meticulously examined the entire
record of the case, including the impugned judgment of conviction
and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court.
3.1. The State of Rajasthan has preferred the present appeal
seeking enhancement of sentence on three broad grounds,
i) That the judgment of the learned Magistrate is contrary to
law and facts of the case;
ii) That the sentences passed by the learned Magistrate are
inadequate and not according to law;
iii) That looking to all the facts and circumstances and gravity of
the offences, the learned Magistrate ought to have passed
adequate and proper sentences.
3.2. At the outset, it is apt to reiterate that one of the
fundamental tenets of sentencing jurisprudence is that the
punishment must fit the crime. The legislature, fully conscious of
the varied factual matrices which may attend criminal conduct,
has conferred wide discretion upon the convicting court to
(Uploaded on 15/12/2025 at 12:09:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53502] (5 of 7) [CRLA-274/1993]
determine an appropriate sentence after affording the accused an
effective opportunity of hearing in terms of Sections 235 and 255
of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Such discretion, however, is not
unbridled, nor is it intended to be exercised in a whimsical,
callous, or mechanical manner.
3.3. The sentencing court is duty-bound to judiciously assess a
constellation of relevant factors, including the nature and
seriousness of the offence, the manner of its commission, the
attendant circumstances, the socio-economic background of the
offender, his mental and physical condition, age, character, prior
antecedents, and the broader societal repercussions of the crime.
The sentencing process must thus reflect a balanced, rational, and
conscientious exercise of judicial discretion rather than an
arbitrary or unscrupulous imposition of punishment.
3.4. It is equally well settled that the complainant has no
independent statutory right to assail the inadequacy of sentence.
Nonetheless, in appropriate cases, the revisional court may
examine the correctness and propriety of the sentence. The State,
acting as parens patriae, is vested with the authority to seek
enhancement where there exists a reasonable basis to conclude
that the sentence awarded is palpably disproportionate to the
gravity of the offence, or where the approach of the Trial Court
exhibits a callous disregard of material considerations or a
manifest misapplication of settled principles of law.
3.5. However, the power of enhancement must be invoked
sparingly and with circumspection. Appellate interference in
(Uploaded on 15/12/2025 at 12:09:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53502] (6 of 7) [CRLA-274/1993]
sentencing is neither a routine exercise, nor can it be founded
upon a mere difference of opinion. Enhancement cannot be
granted in an unscrupulous or overzealous manner, bereft of
compelling justification. The appellate court would ordinarily
refrain from substituting its own view unless the sentence suffers
from perversity, patent illegality, or is demonstrably inadequate
due to non-consideration of relevant factors.
3.6. When the case at hand is evaluated against the aforesaid
legal parameters, it becomes evident that none of the offences for
which the respondents stand convicted prescribes a statutory
minimum sentence. The learned Trial Court, therefore, had a wide
sentencing latitude ranging from a nominal term to the maximum
permissible punishment under law. There is no material on record
to suggest that the learned Magistrate exercised this discretion in
a careless, perfunctory, or callous manner. On the contrary, the
sentence awarded falls squarely within the statutory framework.
3.7. Significantly, neither the State nor the complainant has
adduced any cogent material to substantiate the plea that the
punishment imposed is so lenient as to shock the conscience of
the Court. No specific infirmity, perversity, or legal misdirection in
the sentencing process has been pointed out. The memorandum
of appeal reflects a rather casual and generalized grievance,
lacking in substantive reasoning, and does not disclose any
extraordinary circumstance warranting enhancement. The revision
petition, too, rests upon broad assertions and fails to demonstrate
(Uploaded on 15/12/2025 at 12:09:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53502] (7 of 7) [CRLA-274/1993]
that the sentence is the result of an unscrupulous or arbitrary
exercise of discretion.
4. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court is of the
considered opinion that no material irregularity, perversity, or
illegality can be attributed to the order of sentence passed by the
learned Trial Court. The sentence has been imposed after due
consideration of the relevant factors and within the bounds of
lawful discretion. As neither the State nor the complainant has
succeeded in establishing any compelling ground for interference,
both the appeal seeking enhancement of sentence and the
revision petition are devoid of merit.
5. Accordingly, the State's appeal as well as the complainant's
revision petition stand dismissed. The conviction and sentence
imposed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Nagaur, vide its judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 08.11.1988 passed in Criminal Case No. 4/85, is hereby
affirmed.
6. Record be sent to the trial Court forthwith.
(FARJAND ALI),J
7-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 15/12/2025 at 12:09:05 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
