Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shankerlal vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:25384) on 14 May, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:25384]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 442/2005
Shankerlal S/o Chhoga Lal Ji, R/o Regar Mohalla, Behind Railway
Station, P.S. Chanderia, Dist. Chittorgarh (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan, through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.S. Udawat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
14/05/2025
This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with
401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated
22.02.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1,
Chittorgarh in Cr.Appeal No.73/2004 whereby the judgment dated
20.11.2004 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh in
Cr. Original Case No.181/2003 (256/98, 106/93) was upheld and
the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as below:
Offence under Section Sentences
457 IPC 2 years' simple imprisonment
and a fine of Rs.1000/- and in
default of payment of fine, to
further under undergo 1 month
simple imprisonment.
380 IPC 2 years' simple imprisonment
and a fine of Rs.1000/- and in
default of payment of fine, to
further under undergo 1 month
simple imprisonment.
All sentences are ordered to run concurrently.
[2025:RJ-JD:25384] (2 of 4) [CRLR-442/2005]
From the perusal of the record of the case file, it is evident
that the complainant M.S. Syoran lodged a report stating inter alia
that cable socket and cable gland were stolen from the godown.
The petitioner was thereafter tried for the offences by competent
criminal court and convicted vide judgment dated 20.11.2004,
which came to be upheld by appellate court vide judgment dated
22.02.2005.
Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner submitted that
the sentences so awarded to the revisionist-petitioner were
suspended by this Court vide order dated 14.06.2005 passed in
S.B. Criminal Suspension of Sentences (Bail) Application
No.101/05 in S.B. Criminal Revision No. 442/2005.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner was convicted on the sole testimony of PW- 2 Subrat
Ghosh who is an interested witness. Furthermore the learned
counsel also submitted that the discovery was made from an open
place and is not been supported by any independent witness
whatsoever and thus the judgment ought to be set aside. In the
alternative, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner had undergone detention for some period and the
case is pending against him since 1993. He submitted that the
petitioner is facing agony of a long protracted trial and therefore,
the sentences awarded to the present revisionist-petitioner may
be substituted with the period of sentences already undergone by
him.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the
learned Courts below have rightly awarded the sentences against
the petitioner. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned
[2025:RJ-JD:25384] (3 of 4) [CRLR-442/2005]
judgments/orders and therefore, the same do not call for any
interference by this Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record of
the case.
A perusal of the impugned judgments makes it manifest that
the alleged incident happened in the year 1993 and the present
revision petition is pending adjudication since 2005.
The Hon'ble 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, was
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..."
This Court does not agree with the contentions of the learned
counsel for the petitioner. However, in the light of aforesaid
discussion, precedent law and keeping in view the limited prayer
[2025:RJ-JD:25384] (4 of 4) [CRLR-442/2005]
made on behalf of the revisionist-petitioner, the present revision is
partly allowed.
Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the
petitioner for the offences under Section 457 and 380 IPC, the
sentences awarded to him are reduced to the period already
undergone by him. The petitioner is on bail. He need not
surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.
All pending applications stand disposed of.
Record of the case be sent back to the learned court below
forthwith.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
12-divya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
