Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Pukh Raj vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:1254) on 8 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:1254]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 68/2006
Pukh Raj S/o Achal Chand B/c Jain R/o Village Khambal, District
Sirohi, presently R/o Vahitrawas, Sirohi.
(Presently lodged in District Jail, Sirohi)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bajrang Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP assisted by
Mr. OP Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
08/01/2025
1. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner
challenging the judgment dated 16.01.2006 passed in Cr. Appeal
No.20/2004 (Old 4/1997) by learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi
(hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') by which the
appellate court partly allowed the petitioner's appeal and upheld
the judgment dated 10.01.1997 passed in Cr. Case No.368/1988
by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi (hereinafter referred to
as 'the trial court'). The learned appellate court convicted the
present petitioner for offence under Section 408 of IPC and
reduced the sentence and sentenced him to undergo six months'
S.I. and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of
fine, to further undergo 3 months' S.I.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 14.08.1987, the
complainant Nanagram (PW.2) lodged a written report at Arakshi
[2025:RJ-JD:1254] (2 of 4) [CRLR-68/2006]
Kendra Sirohi to the extent that the petitioner was working as
accountant in Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti, Khambal Panchayat
Samiti, Sirohi. The petitioner committed embezzlement of certain
amount during the period of five years. Upon the aforesaid
information, an FIR was registered and after usual investigation,
charge-sheet came to be submitted against the petitioner in the
Court concerned.
3. On completion of investigation, the Police filed challan before
the concerned court. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charges
for offence under Section 408 & 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 23 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited various
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 10.01.1997 convicted and sentenced
the accused-petitioner for aforesaid offence.
6. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the
petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court,
which came to be partly allowed vide judgment dated 16.01.2006.
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 1987 and out of total
sentence of six months' S.I., the accused petitioner has already
served about 23 days of imprisonment, therefore, it is prayed that
[2025:RJ-JD:1254] (3 of 4) [CRLR-68/2006]
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 1987 and
the petitioner has so far undergone a period of about 23 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 408
of 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
408 of 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, if not already deposited, is hereby
maintained. Two months' time is granted to deposit the fine
amount before the trial Court. In default of payment of fine, the
petitioners shall undergo one month S.I. The petitioner is on bail.
[2025:RJ-JD:1254] (4 of 4) [CRLR-68/2006]
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
8-Rashi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
