Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mangilal vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:2728) on 15 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:2728]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 93/2005
Mangilal S/o Shri Akha Ram B/c Nai, R/o Ganga Shaher District
Bikaner (Raj.). (At present lodged in Central Jail, Bikaner)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Dadhich
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP assisted by
Mr. OP Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
15/01/2025
1. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner
challenging the judgment dated 25.01.2005 passed in Cr. Appeal
No.04/2004 by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bikaner
(hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') by which the
appellate court while dismissing the petitioner's appeal, upheld the
judgment dated 21.03.2003 passed in Criminal Case No.151/2001
by learned Additional Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate No.3,
Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') whereby, the
learned trial court convicted and sentenced the present petitioner
as under:-
Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in
default of fine
Section 457 IPC 1 year S.I. Rs.1,000/- each 15 days' S.I.
Section 380 IPC 6 months' S.I. Rs.500/- each 15 days' S.I.
[2025:RJ-JD:2728] (2 of 4) [CRLR-93/2005]
2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the
period spent in judicial custody shall be adjusted in the original
imprisonment.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 28.02.1996, ASI Mr.
Phoolnath received a telephonic information that two miscreants
are committing a theft at R.S.E.B. store, Bikaner. Upon receiving
the information, the ASI along with other police personnel reached
at the site and seized the theft material from the accused persons.
On this report, Police registered a case against the accused
petitioner for offences under Section 457 & 380 IPC and started
investigation.
4. On completion of investigation, the Police filed challan before
the concerned court. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charges
for offences under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC against the
petitioner, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as 8 witnesses in support of its case. Thereafter, statement of the
accused-petitioner under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded.
6. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 21.03.2003 convicted and sentenced
the accused-petitioner for aforesaid offence.
7. Being aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the
petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court,
which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 25.01.2005.
Hence, this revision petition against the conviction and sentence of
the accused-petitioner.
8. At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner
submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but
[2025:RJ-JD:2728] (3 of 4) [CRLR-93/2005]
since the occurrence is related to the year 1996 and out of total
sentence of one year S.I., the accused petitioner has already
served about one month of imprisonment, therefore, it is prayed
that the sentence awarded to the petitioner for the aforesaid
offences may be reduced to the period already undergone by
them.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Undisputedly, the incident relates back to the year 1996 and
the petitioner has so far undergone a period of about one month
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 457
and 380 of IPC and affirmed by the appellate court is reduced to
the period already undergone by the petitioner.
12. Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. While
maintaining the petitioner's conviction for offences under Sections
457 and 380 of IPC, the sentence awarded to him for the
aforesaid offences is hereby reduced to the period already
undergone. The amount of fine imposed by the trial Court, if not
[2025:RJ-JD:2728] (4 of 4) [CRLR-93/2005]
already deposited by the petitioner, then two months' time is
hereby granted to deposit the fine amount before the trial Court.
In default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall undergo one
month's S.I. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His
bail bonds are discharged. Pending applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of.
13. The record of trial Court as well as the appellate court be
sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
12-Rashi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
