Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jaikishan vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:16048) on 26 March, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:16048]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 205/2006
Jaikishan S/o Roopa Ram R/o Barudi, P.S. Guda Malani, District
Barmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Saluja
Ms. Kamini Chouhan
Ms. Anjana Jawa
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lalit Kishor Sen, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
26/03/2025
1. By way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition under
Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C., challenge has been made to the
judgment dated 03.03.2006 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Balotra, in Criminal Appeal
No.102/2005, whereby the learned appellate court affirmed the
judgment dated 20.07.2005 passed by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Barmer in Criminal Case No.379/2000 convicted the
petitioner for the offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential
Commodities Act and sentenced him to undergo one year's simple
imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of
payment of fine, further to undergo one month's SI.
2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for
disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 09.06.2000,
SHO, Police Station Gudamalani received an information that the
[2025:RJ-JD:16048] (2 of 5) [CRLR-205/2006]
present petitioner along with another person is planning to
transport illegal kerosene from Dhorimanna to Gudamalani. Upon
said information, police personnel conducted a blockade at
Lohrava Road. At about 5 AM, Police stopped a jeep-trolley which
was driven by the present petitioner and inspected the trolley in
which drums were loaded. Upon inquiry, the petitioner claimed
that the drums contained diesel but when Police inspected the
drums, kerosene was found in them. The petitioner did not have
any permit and bill for the kerosene. 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. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner
for the offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act
and upon denial of guilt by him, commenced the trial. During the
course of trial, the prosecution in order to prove the offence,
examined 13 witnesses. The accused, upon being confronted with
the prosecution allegations, in his statement under Section 313
Cr.P.C., denied the allegations and claimed to be innocent. Then,
after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and upon meticulous
appreciation of the evidence, learned trial court convicted and
sentenced the petitioner for the offence under Section 3/7 of the
Essential Commodities Act vide judgment dated 20.07.2005.
Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal,
which was dismissed by the learned appellate court vide judgment
dated 03.03.2006. Hence, this revision petition is filed before this
court.
[2025:RJ-JD:16048] (3 of 5) [CRLR-205/2006]
4. After arguing the case on merits to some extent, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he will not assail
conviction of the petitioner and confines his arguments to the
alternative prayer of reduction of the sentence awarded by the
trial court. He submits that the incident in the present case
pertains to the year 2000. The petitioner was 24 years of age at
that time. He was not having any criminal antecedents and it was
the first criminal case registered against him. No adverse remark
has been passed over his conduct except the impugned judgment.
The petitioner has already suffered agony of protracted trial of 25
years. The petitioner has remained in custody for a period of
about 7 days out of total sentence of one year S.I. With these
submissions, learned counsel prays that by taking a lenient view,
the sentence awarded to the petitioner may be reduced to the
period already undergone.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor has, of course, been able to
defend the case on merits. However, he does not refute the fact
that it was the first criminal case registered against the petitioner
and he had no criminal antecedents as well as the fact that he has
remained behind the bars for some time after passing of the
judgment in appeal.
6. Since the revision petition against conviction is not pressed
and after perusing the material, nothing is noticed which requires
interference in the finding of guilt reached by learned trial court
and affirmed by the appellate court, this court does not wish to
interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment
of conviction is maintained.
[2025:RJ-JD:16048] (4 of 5) [CRLR-205/2006]
7. As far as the question of quantum of sentence in concerned,
it is worthwhile to note that the case pertains to the year 2000
and much time has gone by since then. The petitioner was aged
about 24 years at that time and at present he is around 49 years
of age. The trial took 5 years to culminate and it took further 1
years in decision of the appeal. Thereafter, this revision is pending
before this court for last 19 years. The right to speedy and
expeditious trial is one of the most valuable and cherished rights
guaranteed under the Constitution. The petitioner has already
suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of
more than 25 years and has been in the corridors of the court for
this prolonged period. It was the first criminal case registered
against him. He has not been shown to be indulged in any other
criminal case except this one. He remained incarcerated for a
period of about 7 days out of total sentence of one year S.I. In
view of the facts noted above, the case of the petitioner deserves
to be dealt with leniency. The petitioner also deserves the benefit
of the consistent view taken by this court in this regard. Thus,
guided by the judicial pronouncements made by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the cases of Haripada Das Vs. State of West
Bangal, reported in (1998 9 SCC 678 and Alister Anthony
Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2012 2 SCC 648
and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, age of
petitioner, his criminal antecedents, his status in the society and
the fact that he faced financial hardship and had to go through
mental agony, this court is of the view that ends of justice would
be met, if sentence imposed upon the petitioner is reduced to the
period already undergone by him.
[2025:RJ-JD:16048] (5 of 5) [CRLR-205/2006]
8. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 20.07.2005
passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer in
Criminal Case No.379/2000 as well as the judgment in appeal
dated 03.03.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge (Fast Track), Balotra, Barmer in Criminal Appeal
No.102/2005 are affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded
to the petitioner for the offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential
Commodities Act, is modified to the extent that the sentence he
has undergone till date would be sufficient and justifiable to serve
the interest of justice. 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 petitioner shall undergo one month
S.I. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds
are discharged.
9. The revision petition is allowed in part. Pending applications,
if any, shall stand disposed of.
10. Record of the courts below be sent back.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
21-Rashi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
