[2025:RJ-JD:35392]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 273/2008 Raj Singh @ Rajendra Singh son of Darshan Singh, Resident of

6B.B., Tehsil Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar.

[Lodged at District Jail, Sri Ganganagar]

----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. DL Rawla.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Singh, PP. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order

06/08/2025

1. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner against the judgment dated 14.03.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the appellate court’) in Criminal Appeal No.07/2005, whereby the said appeal was dismissed and judgment dated 11.03.2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the trial court’) in Criminal Case No.335/1997 was upheld.

1.1. The accused petitioner was convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated 11.03.2005 passed by the learned trial court as below :-

Conviction for Sentence Fine In default of the offences Awarded Amount payment of fine under Sections further undergo

3/25 (1-B) (A) 2 Years’ Rigorous Rs.100/- 10 days’ Simple of Arms Act Imprisonment Imprisonment

2. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that on 14.05.1997, acting on secret information, the SHO of Police Station Padampur reached the petitioner’s house and saw two persons standing outside. On seeing the police, the petitioner allegedly threw away a bag and both individuals fled the scene. Upon checking the bag, the police recovered a revolver and cartridges.

2.1. An FIR No. 84/1997 was registered against the petitioner under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. After investigation, a charge- sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Padampur. Charges were framed under Section 3/25(1)(B)(A) of the Arms Act. The petitioner denied the charges and claimed trial.

2.2. During the trial, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses. The petitioner’s statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he denied the allegations and claimed false implication.

No defence evidence was led.

2.3. After hearing final arguments, the learned trial court decided the case vide judgment dated 11.03.2005 and convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 3/25(1-B)(A) of the Arms Act. The petitioner preferred an appeal, which was also decided by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur, vide judgment dated 14.03.2008, whereby the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court were affirmed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the sentences so awarded to the petitioner were suspended by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.04.2008 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Application for Suspension of Sentences No.47/2008.

3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has undergone detention for some period and the case is pending against him since 2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner is facing agony of a long protracted trial and, therefore, without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentences awarded to the present petitioner may be substituted with the period of sentences already undergone by him.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. However, he was not in a position to dispute the fact that the present revision petition is pending since 2008.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. A perusal of the impugned judgments makes is manifest that the alleged incident happened in the year 1997 and the present revision petition is pending adjudication since 2008.

6.1. Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the cases of Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State