Advocates:
['VINEET JAIN', '', 'ASHOK KUMAR', 'PP']

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1152/2015

Mukhtiyar Singh

----Petitioner

Versus

State

----Respondent

Connected With

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1105/2015

Jagdish

----Petitioner

Versus

State

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Vineet Jain, Sr. Adv. Assisted by

Mr. Rajeev Bishnoi

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Anda Ram Choudhary, PP

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

09/05/2022

1.

In the wake of instant surge in COVID – 19 cases and spread

of its highly infectious Omicron variant,abundant caution is being

maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety

of all concerned.

2.

The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year

2006 and the present criminal revision has been pending since the

year 2015.

3.

This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with

Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment

dated 28.09.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge

No.4, Bikaner in Criminal Appeal No.79/2012 & 61/2012, whereby

the judgment dated 17.09.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge

& Judicial Magistrate, Lunkaransar in Criminal Case No.254/2006,

(2 of 3)

[CRLR-1152/2015]

convicting the revisionist-petitioners was upheld. The petitioner

No.1 Mukhtiyar Singh was convicted for the offences under

Section 6/8 (2) Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter

and Regulation of Temporary Migration or Export) and was

sentenced to undergo one year’s R.I. and the fine of Rs.1000/- in

default of payment of which he was further ordered to undergo

three month’s S.I; petitioner No.2 Jagdish was convicted for the

offences under Section 5/8 (2) Rajasthan Bovine Animal

(Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary Migration or

Export) and was sentenced to undergo one year’s R.I. and the fine

of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of which he was further

ordered to undergo three month’s S.I and under Section 11

Prevention of Animal Cruelty Act he was sentenced a fine of

Rs.50/- in default of payment of which he was further ordered to

undergo two days S.I.

4

Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioners, however,

makes a limited submission that without making any interference

on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present

revisionist-petitioners may be substituted with the period of

sentence already undergone by them.

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

(3 of 3)

[CRLR-1152/2015]

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

petitioners, and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent

laws, the present petition is partly allowed. Accordingly, while

maintaining the conviction of the petitioners for the offences