Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jai Singh vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:8727) on 12 February, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:8727]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 911/2007
Jai Singh S/o Ram Singh B/c Rajput R/o Gawalnada, District
Barmer (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.S. Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP assisted by
Mr. OP Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
12/02/2025
1. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner
challenging the judgment dated 22.08.2007 passed in Cr. Appeal
No.26/2005 by learned Sessions Judge, Balotra (hereinafter
referred to as 'the appellate court') by which the appellate court
while dismissing the petitioner's appeal, upheld the judgment
dated 13.09.2005 passed in Criminal Original Case No.198/1997
by learned Judicial Magistrate, Balotra (hereinafter referred to as
'the trial court') whereby, the learned trial court convicted the
present petitioner for offence as under:-
(i) Section 420 IPC - One year's R.I. and imposed a fine of
Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo
two months' S.I.
(ii) Section 471 IPC - One year's R.I. and imposed a fine of
Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo
two months' S.I.
[2025:RJ-JD:8727] (2 of 4) [CRLR-911/2007]
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 19.05.1992, Ratan Singh
submitted a written report at Police Station Balotra alleging that
the accused-petitioner Jai Singh submitted a forged B.Ed.
Marksheet obtained from Harishchandra Post Graduate College,
Varanasi and got appointed as a teacher in a primary school in
Panchayat Samiti, Gwalnada on 31.03.1991. Thereafter, his
service was terminated on 31.05.1991 but he was reinstated on
10.08.1991 at Raj. Primary School, Gwalnada and received salary
& other benefits based on forged documents. The forgery made by
petitioner was revealed following an inquiry by Chief Executive
Officer, Zila Parishad, Barmer. Upon inquiry, it was found that the
accused-petitioner neither took admission nor studied in the
aforesaid college. Upon said report, the Police registered a case
against the accused-petitioner and commenced investigation.
3. On completion of investigation, the Police filed challan
against the petitioner. Thereafter, the trial court framed the
charges for offence under Section 420, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC
against the petitioner who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as 9 witnesses in support of its case and also exhibited some
documents. 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 13.09.2005 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 22.08.2007.
[2025:RJ-JD:8727] (3 of 4) [CRLR-911/2007]
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 1992 and out of total
sentence of one year's R.I., the accused petitioner has already
served about 10 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-
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 1992 and
the petitioner has so far undergone a period of about 10 days in
custody out of one year 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 Sections 420
& 471 IPC and affirmed by the appellate court is reduced to the
period already undergone by the petitioner.
11. Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. While
maintaining the petitioner's conviction for offence under Section
[2025:RJ-JD:8727] (4 of 4) [CRLR-911/2007]
420 & 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 maintained. The amount
of fine imposed by the trial Court, if not already deposited by the
petitioner, then two months' time is granted to deposit the fine
amount before the trial Court. In default of payment of fine, the
appellant shall undergo one month S.I. 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
29-Rashi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
