Heard. Perused the record. In Mohd. Firoz v. State of Madhya Pradesh

: Mr. Syed Adeel Naqvi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP with Mr. Shubham Sain, AAAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA 02/04/2025 Order

1. The present criminal revision petition has been filed by the accused- petitioners under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence dated

18.10.2004 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate No.2, Alwar (Raj.) (for short the ‘trial Court’) in Criminal Case No. 160/2000, whereby the learned trial Court convicted the accused- petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 365 IPC to undergo two years’ simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 700/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month’s imprisonment, for offence punishable under Section 353 IPC to undergo three months’ simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.300/- each and in default of [2025:RJ-JP:14901] (2 of 4) [CRLR-700/2006] payment of fine to further undergo seven days’ simple imprisonment. The petitioners have further challenged the judgment dated 03.07.2006 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Alwar (Rajasthan), (for short the ‘Appellate Court’) in Criminal Appeal No. 48/05, whereby the learned appellate Court partly allowed the appeal and while maintaining the conviction of the accused-petitioners, altered the sentence of the accused-petitioners under Section 365 IPC to undergo six months’ simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month’s additional simple imprisonment, for offence punishable under Section 353 IPC to undergo three months’ simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.300/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo seven days’ additional simple imprisonment.

2. Learned counsel for the revisionist- petitioners submits that the sentence, so awarded to the revisionist-petitioners, was suspended by the Court vide its order dated 24.07.2006. Counsel makes only a limited prayer 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, which is about twenty one days.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioners.

5. Heard. Perused the record. In Mohd. Firoz Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.612/2019, decided on 19.04.2022), [2025:RJ-JP:14901] (3 of 4) [CRLR-700/2006] wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court, owing to the special facts & circumstances of the case, while reducing the sentence for offences under the relevant Section of the concerned Statute, observed as under:- “43………….we are reminded of what Oscar Wilde has said -“The only difference between the saint and the sinner is that every saint has a past and every sinner has a future”. One of the basic principles of restorative justice as developed by this Court over the years, also is to give an opportunity to the offender to repair the damage caused, and to become a socially useful individual, when he is released from the jail. The maximum punishment prescribed may not always be the determinative factor for repairing the crippled psyche of the offender.” (Emphasis supplied) This Court, therefore, observes, as is revealed from hereinabove, that the Hon’ble Apex Court, in Mohd. Firoz (supra), held that the Court may, in the interest of justice, reduce the sentence awarded to the accused. More so, this would be directed when the matter is an old one, and a deserving case at that, to reduce the sentence awarded to an accused person, to the time/sentence already served by him. Similarly, in special acts, with regard to the age/pendency of the matter, depending on the facts & circumstances of the case, this Court may deem it a fit case for applying the same aforementioned principle to reduce the sentence awarded to the period already undergone by them.

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 [2025:RJ-JP:14901] (4 of 4) [CRLR-700/2006] 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. The present matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 2000 and this revision petition is pending since year 2006. The parties are said to be living peacefully in the intervening period. The accused-petitioners have already suffered a lot in facing trial and appeal for long period, which may also be a kind of uncoded punishment.

8. Hence, in light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioners and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, the present revision petition is partly allowed. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the accused-petitioners for the offence(s) under Sections 365 & 353 I.P.C., the sentence awarded to them is reduced to the period already undergone by them. The petitioners are not in judicial custody, thus, they need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.

9. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. ARTI SHARMA /6 (GANESH RAM MEENA),J