Ram Lal vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:5803)
2025 Latest Caselaw 5673 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 5673 Raj
Judgement Date : 29 January, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Ram Lal vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:5803) on 29 January, 2025

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2025:RJ-JD:5803]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
             S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 248/2006

Ram Lal S/o Shri Gordhan Das, R/o Badnor, District Bhilwara
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
The State of Rajasthan
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)         :     None Present
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Shrawan Singh Rathore, PP



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

29/01/2025

This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with

Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner against

the judgment dated 20.03.2006 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Gulabpura, District Bhilwara in Criminal Appeal

No.9/2005 whereby the judgment dated 01.03.2005 passed by

the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Asind, District Bhilwara

in Criminal Regular Case No.112/2000 was upheld. The accused

petitioner was convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated

01.05.2005 passed by the trial court as below:

Conviction for Offence Under Section Sentence 91(6) of Land Revenue Act One month's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo additional ten days' simple imprisonment

Briefly stated, facts of the present case are that the accused-

petitioner has encroached 0.15 hectare of land of No.1434 of

village Badnor by erecting a stone wall and started cultivation

thereon. On 14.03.2000, the Patwari, Bandor registered a case

[2025:RJ-JD:5803] (2 of 4) [CRLR-248/2006]

against the petitioner and issued notice to him. On 07.04.2000,

the Patwari, Bandor made a report that the said encroachment has

not been removed by the petitioner and requested that an FIR be

lodged against him.

On the basis of the aforesaid report, an FIR No.40/2000 was

registered against the accused- petitioner at P.S. Bandor for the

offence under Section 91(6) of Land Revenue Act, 1956 and

investigation was commenced. After filing of the charge sheet for

the above offence and upon completion of the trial, the petitioner

was convicted by the learned trial court below for the aforesaid

offence vide judgment dated 01.05.2005 which was upheld by the

learned appellate court vide judgment dated 20.03.2006.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

sentences so awarded to the petitioner were suspended by this

Court, vide order dated 27.03.2006 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail

(Suspension of Sentences) Application No.67/2006.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner has undergone detention for some period and the case

is pending against him since 2000. Learned counsel for the

petitioner submitted that the petitioner is facing agony of a long

protracted trial and therefore, without making any interference on

merits/conviction, the sentences awarded to the present petitioner

may be substituted with the period of sentences already

undergone by him.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made on

behalf of the petitioner. However, he was not in a position to

dispute that the present revision petition is pending since 2006.

Heard.

[2025:RJ-JD:5803] (3 of 4) [CRLR-248/2006]

A perusal of the impugned judgments makes is manifest that

the alleged incident happened in the year 2000 and the present

revision petition is pending adjudication since 2006.

Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Alister

Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012)2 SCC 648

and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. (1998)9 SCC 678,

pleased to observe as under:

Alister Anthony Pareira (supra) "There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances."

Haripada Das (supra) "... considering the fact that the respondent had already undergone detention for some period and the case is pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered both financial hardship and mental agony and also considering the fact that he had been released on bail as far back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice will be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone..."

In the light of aforesaid discussion, precedent law and

keeping in view the limited prayer made on behalf of the

revisionist-petitioner, the present revision is partly allowed.

Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the

petitioner for the offence under Section 91(6) of Land Revenue

Act, 1956, the sentence awarded to him is hereby reduced to the

period already undergone by him. He need not surrender. His bail

bonds stand discharged accordingly.