[2025:RJ-JP:36709]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 650/2007 Banwari Lal son of Shri Kishan Gopal resident of Bahaj Police Station Deeg District Bharatpur ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor

2. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan through Additional Registrar (Vigilance), Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Virendra Singh, Advocate for Mr. Ashwani Chobisa, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Gupta, Public Prosecutor HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

Order

10/09/2025 :

Instant revision petition has been filed on behalf of accused/

petitioner under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved by judgment dt.16.06.2007 passed by Court of ld. Additional Sessions Judge, No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in Criminal Appeal No.12/2007 whereby the appeal filed by petitioner has been dismissed & the judgment dt.02.05.2003 passed by Court of ld. Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No.4, Jaipur City, in Criminal Case No.379/1994 whereby the petitioner has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 182 of I.P.C. & sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default thereof to further undergo one month simple imprisonment has been affirmed.

Submissions of learned counsel appearing for the accused-

petitioner are that the petitioner was on bail during trial & appeal. The findings recorded by the ld. Courts below are illegal and perverse. The sentence, so awarded to petitioner was, however, suspended by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dt.23.07.2007. The petitioner deserves some leniency as he has been constrained to undergo the ordeal of trial proceedings since the year, 1994 thereby suffering protracted litigation for an inordinate period of approximately 31 years. Further submission is that ld. Counsel shall not assail the conviction of the petitioner and confines his arguments to the alternative prayer of reduction of sentence awarded by ld. trial Court to the period already undergone by him. Hence, this petition be partly allowed & the sentence awarded to petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, has submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgments whatsoever and, therefore, the same do not call for any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court. However, he did not seriously dispute the submission regarding reduction of sentence.

Heard learned counsel for the rival parties at length.

Perused the impugned judgments and the entire record of the case.

Since the present revision petition against conviction is not pressed and after perusing the material nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by ld. Trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court, this Court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained.

So far as the question of quantum of sentence is concerned, it is pertinent to note here that in the present case, incident pertains to the year 1994. The petitioner has already suffered the agony of protracted litigation, spanning over a period around 31 years and has been in the corridors of the Court for this prolonged period. He remained incarcerated for some time, hence, the case of the petitioner deserves to be dealt with leniency. Thus, guided by the judicial pronouncements made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of West Bengal, (1998) 9 SCC 678 and considering the facts & circumstances of the case, status of the petitioner in the society and the fact that he faced financial hardship and he had to go through mental a