State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor v. For

: Mr. Praveen Jain, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Gupa, Public Procedure HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order 17/09/2025 : By way of filing instant revision petition under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the accused petitioners have challenged the judgment dt.02.01.2007 passed by Court of ld. Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Deoli District Tonk, in Criminal Case No.1498/2003 (267/2001), whereby ld. Magistrate had convicted & sentenced the petitioners as follows:- “For offence u/s.457 of I.P.C.: The petitioners were sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month additional simple imprisonment. The petitioners/accused have also challenged the judgment dt.25.06.2007 passed by the Court of ld. Sessions Judge, Tonk, in Criminal Appeal No.06/2007 whereby the ld. Judge has partly allowed the appeal, affirmed the judgment of conviction & while modifying the judgment of sentence reduced the sentence from three years rigorous imprisonment to three months rigorous imprisonment with fine of [2025:RJ-JP:38099] (2 of 4) [CRLR-696/2007] Rs.500/- and default thereof to further undergo 15-days additional simple imprisonment. Learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioners contends that the sentences, so awarded to the revisionist-petitioners were suspended by this Court vide its order dt.19.07.2007. Counsel further contends that in the special circumstances where the matters are of extremely old pendency and unless there are aggravating circumstances the same need not to be revisited on merits, and, thus, it is a fit case for interfere of this Court for passing of an order reducing the sentence awarded to the petitioners to the period already undergone by them. Counsel also contends that the petitioners had undergone detention for some period & they are facing agony of a long protracted litigation since 2001 and, therefore, he, 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. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor 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. Perused the entire evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgements passed by both the ld. Courts below regarding conviction of the petitioners. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:38099] (3 of 4) [CRLR-696/2007] interfere in the judgement of conviction. Accordingly, the judgement 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 2001. The petitioners have already suffered the agony of protracted litigation, spanning over a period around 24 years and have been in the corridors of the Court for this prolonged period. He remained incarcerated for some time, hence, the case of the petitioners deserve 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 petitioners in the society and the fact that they faced financial hardship and they had to go through mental agony, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met, if sentence imposed upon the petitioners be reduced to the period already undergone by them. This Court is also conscious of the judgements in the cases of Hakam Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2016) 3 CRLR 1294, 1, Puran Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2011 1 CRLR 662 and Mohd. Firoz Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.612/2019) decided on 19.04.2022, wherein it was clearly held that in the special conditions, owning to the facts & circumstance of a case, the minimum sentence can be overlooked by the Hon’ble Court for the purpose of passing an order, substituting the sentence awarded with the period already undergone by the petitioners, where the sentence undergone by the petitioners is less than the minimum sentence prescribed by the relevant statute. [2025:RJ-JP:38099] (4 of 4) [CRLR-696/2007] Thus, the analogy drawn, from the precedent laws discussed above, is that even under special laws, wherein a minimum sentence for offences under the provision of the concerned statute is prescribed, the Hon’ble Apex Court & this Court have taken a consistent approach in reducing the sentence of the accused to the period already undergone, even below the minimum sentence prescribed, owing to the special facts & circumstances of each case. This Court, therefore, owing to the special facts & circumstances of the present case, more particularly the long pendency of the case & the old date of incident as well as keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, partly allows this revision petition. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioners for the alleged offences, the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to them is reduced to the period already undergone by them. The petitioners are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds stands discharged accordingly. However, the fine imposed earlier shall be set off, if already deposited. All pending application stands disposed of. Record of the ld. Court below be sent back forthwith. (VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J ASHOK/