Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Prakash Kumar And Anr vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:4259) on 22 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:4259]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 850/2006
1. Prakash Kumar S/o Bhura Ram, by caste Ghanchi, R/o
Chawani, Shivganj (Sirohi)
2. Ashok Kumar S/o Deva Ram, by caste Mali, R/o Bheru
Chowk, Sumerpur, District Pali
(Presently lodged at District Jail, Jodhpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Umesh Shrimali
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Kumar Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
22/01/2025
Instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has
been filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment dated
04.09.2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi (hereinafter
referred to as 'the appellate court') in Criminal Appeal No.40/2004
by which the appellate court dismissed the appeal of the
petitioners and upheld the judgment dated 25.10.2004 passed by
the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class Shivganj, (hereinafter
referred to as 'the trial court') in Criminal Regular Case
No.254/1996 whereby, the learned trial court convicted and
sentenced the present petitioners as under :-
[2025:RJ-JD:4259] (2 of 5) [CRLR-850/2006]
Offence Sentence Fine & default sentence
467 IPC Two years' SI Rs.100/- in default of payment,
further undergo one month's S.I.
468 IPC Two years' SI Rs.100/- in default of payment,
further undergo one month's S.I.
471 IPC Two years' SI Rs.100/- in default of payment,
further undergo one month's S.I.
474 IPC Two years' SI Rs.100/- in default of payment,
further undergo one month's S.I.
420 IPC Two years' SI Rs.100/- in default of payment,
further undergo one month's S.I.
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Brief facts of the case are that on 12.07.1994 complainant
Rajendra gave a report at Police Station Shivganj to the effect that
both the petitioners printed a forged receipt book of shop viz. Ashok
Kumar Khimchand. By way of this forgery, they collected due amount
from the customers. On this report, the police registered the case
against accused-petitioners for offence under Sections 467, 468,
471 and 420 IPC and started investigation.
On completion of investigation, the police filed challan
against the accused-petitioner for offence under Sections 467,
468, 471, 474 & 420 of IPC. Thereafter, the charges of the case
were framed against the accused-petitioner, who denied the
charges and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 15
witnesses and also exhibited certain documents. Thereafter,
statement of the accused-persons were recorded under section
313 Cr.P.C.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 25.10.2004 convicted and sentenced
the accused-petitioners for offences as mentioned earlier.
[2025:RJ-JD:4259] (3 of 5) [CRLR-850/2006]
Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the petitioners
preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which
came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 04.09.2006. Hence,
this revision petition.
Learned Public Prosecutor submits a report dated 13.12.2024
received from the Police Station Shivganj, District Sirohi,
informing therein that the accused petitioner No.1 Prakash Kumar
was expired on 11.08.2020. Death certificate of accused petitioner
Prakash Kumar is also annexed with this report, the same is also
taken on record.
In view of submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor
and according to the death certificate, the present revision petition
qua the petitioner No.1 Prakash Kumar is hereby dismissed as
having become abated.
So far as accused petitioner No.2 Ashok Kumar is concerned,
in this regard, counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the
finding of conviction but it is submitted that the occurrence relates
back to year 1994 and the petitioner No.2 Ashok Kumar has so far
suffered a sentence of about fourty four days, out of total
sentence of two years' S.I. In such circumstances, it is prayed that
the substantive sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner No.2
Ashok Kumar for the offence under Sections Sections 467, 468,
471, 474 & 420 IPC may be reduced to the period already
undergone by him.
On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently
opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
accused-petitioner. The learned PP submitted that there is neither
[2025:RJ-JD:4259] (4 of 5) [CRLR-850/2006]
any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the
accused petitioner No.2 Ashok Kumar nor any compassion or
sympathy is called for in the said case.
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 No.2 Ashok Kumar.
It is not disputed that the occurrence has taken place in the
year 1994 and the accused-petitioner No.2 Ashok Kumar has so
far undergone a period of fourty fours days' incarceration, out of
total sentence of two years' S.I., and so also suffered the mental
agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all
circumstances and the fact that the accused-petitioner No.2 Ashok
Kumar has remained behind the bars for considerable time, it will
be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for
offence under Sections 467, 468, 471, 474 & 420 IPC and
affirmed by the appellate court is reduced to the period already
undergone by him.
Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is partly allowed
qua the petitioner No.2 Ashok Kumar. While maintaining the
petitioner's Ashok Kumar conviction and sentence for offence
under Sections 467, 468, 471, 474 & 420 IPC the sentence
awarded to him for aforesaid offences is hereby reduced to the
period already undergone. The fine amount, as imposed by the
learned trial court is maintained. Two months' time is granted to
deposit the fine amount before the trial court. In default of
payment of fine, the petitioner No.2 Ashok Kumar shall undergo
one months' simple imprisonment. The petitioner No.2 Ashok
[2025:RJ-JD:4259] (5 of 5) [CRLR-850/2006]
Kumar is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand
discharged.
The record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
21-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
