[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sahil Alias Fakira vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:20510) on 29 April, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:20510]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 624/2026
Sahil Alias Fakira, Aged About 26 Years, Bhanada, Behind
Thakurji Mandir, Police Station Bawalwada, Udaipur Rajasthan
(Central Jail, Udaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Bishnoi
Mr. Naresh Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
29/04/2026
1. The present criminal revision petition under Section 397/401
CrPC (corresponding to Sections 438 and 442 of the BNSS) has
been preferred against the judgment dated 04.12.2025 passed by
the learned Sessions Judge, Dungarpur in Criminal Appeal
No.03/2024 (CIS No.03/2024), whereby the appeal filed by the
petitioner came to be dismissed and the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 11.12.2023 passed by the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dungarpur in Regular Criminal Case
No.701/2023 was affirmed, whereby the petitioner was convicted
for the offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced to undergo two years' simple imprisonment along with
a fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further
undergo one month's simple imprisonment.
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 09:20:24 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20510] (2 of 4) [CRLR-624/2026]
2. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been
filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the present revision
petition. It is submitted that the petitioner is a rustic villager,
remained in custody, and due to lack of proper legal assistance
and delayed communication, the revision could not be filed within
the prescribed period. It is further submitted that the delay is
neither intentional nor deliberate.
3. Having considered the reasons assigned in the application
and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is
satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown for not preferring
the revision within limitation. The delay is accordingly condoned.
The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands
allowed.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public
Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the revision
on merits so far as the finding of conviction is concerned and
confines his submissions to the question of sentence. It is
submitted that the petitioner is a young person, belongs to a poor
background, has no previous criminal antecedents and has already
undergone a substantial period of incarceration. It is, therefore,
prayed that a lenient view be taken on the point of sentence.
6. Upon consideration of the record, this Court does not find
any perversity or illegality in the concurrent findings recorded by
the courts below warranting interference in exercise of revisional
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 09:20:24 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20510] (3 of 4) [CRLR-624/2026]
jurisdiction. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner for the
offence under Section 379 IPC is affirmed.
7. However, as regards the quantum of sentence, this Court
takes note of the fact that the petitioner is a young person, there
is nothing on record to indicate that he is a habitual offender, and
it appears to be his first offence. The offence is not of such a
nature which would rule out the possibility of reformation. The
petitioner has already remained in custody and there is nothing
adverse regarding his conduct.
8. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and
keeping in view the reformative object of criminal jurisprudence,
this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met
by extending the benefit of probation to the petitioner.
9. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed in part. While
maintaining the judgment of conviction, the order of sentence is
modified to the extent that the petitioner shall be released on
probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
10. The petitioner is directed to be released from custody
forthwith, if not required in any other case, upon his furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court, for a
period of two years, with an undertaking to maintain peace and
good behaviour during the said period and to appear and receive
sentence as and when called upon in case of breach of conditions.
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 09:20:24 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20510] (4 of 4) [CRLR-624/2026]
11. The fine amount as imposed by the learned trial court shall
remain intact and shall be deposited, if not already deposited,
within a period of 60 days.
12. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.
13. All pending applications including the application seeking
suspension of sentence are disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
119-suraj/-
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 09:20:24 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
