JUDGMENT :

In S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1196/2014:

1. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 2002 and the present criminal revision has been pending since the year 2014.

2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 08.12.2011 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, District Churu in Criminal Appeal No.17/2003, whereby the judgment dated 14.08.2003 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh, District Churu in Criminal Original Case No.377/2002, convicting the revisionist-petitioner was upheld. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under:- (sentences to run concurrently)

454 IPC: 02 years’ S.I. and a fine of Rs.250/-in default of payment of fine he was ordered to further undergo one month’s S.I.

380 IPC: 02 years’ S.I and a fine of Rs.250/-in default of payment of fine he was ordered to further undergo one month’s S.I.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner further submits that the sentence so awarded to the revisionist-petitioner was suspended by this Hon’ble Court, vide order dated 26.11.2014 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. (SOS) Bail No.393/2014.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the articles recovered and the testimony do not corroborate and grave suspicion is created by the deposition made by the witnesses regarding the same.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to such suspicion the prosecution could not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner, however, makes a limited submission that without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present revisionist-petitioner may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by him.

7. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.

8. On perusal of the statement of witnesses as well as recovered articles, it seems that there is a discrepancy in the story of the prosecution.

9. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. (1998) 9 SCC 678 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed 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…”

10. In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, the present petition is partly allowed. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 454 & 380 IPC, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.

11. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.

In S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1357/2011:

1. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 2002 and the present criminal revision has been pending since the year 2011.

2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401