IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that in cases of prolonged trials, the time served and the mental impact on the accused should be significant factors in determining the appropriateness of the sentence.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Garg, J.

1. Instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment dated 08.07.2003 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.3, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellate court’) in Criminal Appeal No.14/2003 by which the appellate court modified the conviction and sentence of the petitioners awarded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pipar City in Original Cr. Case No.242/1992 vide order dated 06.08.2001. The details of the conviction and sentence of the petitioners as modified by the learned appellate court are as under :

Appellant No.1 : Babu Lal

Appellant No.2 : Alpu Ram

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 09.03.1989, complainant Laxmikant Bohra, Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Pipar City submitted a complaint before the concerned Court to the effect that on raising illegal constructions upon a vacant land by the accused-petitioner No.1 Babu Lal, a notice was issued to him by the Municipal Board, Pipar. In response to the said notice, petitioner No.1 submitted an application for seeking permission to raise construction of boundary wall over the disputed land. A copy of patta of the said land in dispute was also filed. On verification, it was found that the said patta as well as power of attorney was prepared fraudulently by the accused-petitioners.

3. The said complaint was sent to the concerned Police Station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation. On receiving the complaint, Police registered a case against the accused-petitioners for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and started investigation.

4. On completion of investigation, the police filed challan against the accused petitioners. Thereafter, the charges of the case were framed by the trial court against the accused petitioners, who denied the charges and claimed trial.

5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses. Thereafter, statements of the accused petitioners were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.

6. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 06.08.2001 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner for the offences as mentioned in the judgment itself.

7. Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which came to be decided vide judgment dated 08.07.2003 and the appellate court modified the conviction and sentence of the petitioners as awarded by the trial court, details of which are mentioned hereinabove. Hence this revision petition.

8. During the pendency of the revision petition, the petitioner No.2 Alpu Ram expired and the revision qua him was dismissed as abated by this Court vide order dated 14.07.2017.

9. So far as, petitioner No.1 Babu Lal is concerned, counsel does not challenge the finding of conviction but it is submitted that the occurrence relates back to year 1989 and he has so far suffered a sentence of fifteen days, out of total sentence of two years’ S.I. In such circumstances, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner No.1 for the