[2025:RJ-JP:36694]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.213/2007 Yogesh Saxena son of Shyam Saxena, Resident of House No.141, Diloba Basti, Ganganagar presently residing at 2/77, Housing Board, Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

Accused in Sub District Jail Jhunjhunu.

----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan through the Public Prosecutor Jaipur.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeev Bandhu, Adv. for Mr. Yogesh Kumar Sharma, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP and Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

Order

10/09/2025

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

2007.

2. This criminal revision petition under Sections 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 20.02.2007 and 08.02.2007. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Jhunjhunu, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’) in Criminal Case No.810/2002, vide its order dated 08.02.2007 has convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner under Section 3/25 of Arms Act for two years simple imprisonment along with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo fifteen days of simple imprisonment. However, the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellate Court’) in Criminal Regular Appeal No.18/2007, partly allowed the appeal of the accused-appellant and reduced his sentence to nine months simple imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 1000/ and to further undergo simple imprisonment of 15 days in default of payment of fine.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sentence so awarded to the revisionist-petitioner was suspended by this Court vide order dated 19.03.2007.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner, however, makes a limited submission that the petitioner has already remained in custody for a period of 06 months and 04 days, 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.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.

6. 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…”

7. In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, the present criminal revision petition is allowed. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 3/25 of Arms Act, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him and imposition of fine by the trial court is maintained. The petitioner shall deposit the amount of fine imposed upon him within a period of one month in the trial Court from today. The petitioner is on bail. He needs not to surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingl