[2025:RJ-JP:12552] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 452/2005 Chimman Lal s/o Shri Kanji r/o Hathai Mohalla Near Sed Mata mandir Mandawari, P.S. Lalsot District Dausa (Raj.) (At present confined in Sub-Jail Gangapur city). ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan through, P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 19/03/2025 1. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 2001 and the present criminal revision is pending since the year 2005. 2. This criminal revision petition filed under Sections 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 27.11.2002, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Gangapurcity in Criminal Appeal No.53/2002, whereby the learned Appellate Court has confirmed the sentence and conviction passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track) Gangapurcity in Criminal Case No.50/2002. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track) Gangapurcity in Criminal Case No.50/2002, vide its order dated 24.10.2002 has convicted and sentenced the accused- petitioner under Section 379 of IPC for 1 Year of Rigorous [2025:RJ-JP:12552] (2 of 3) [CRLR-452/2005] imprisonment and ordered to set off the period of imprisonment already undergone against the sentence as per Section 428 of CrPC. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sentence so awarded to the revisionist-petitioner was suspended by this Court vide its order dated 02.06.2005. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner, however, makes a limited submission that the petitioner has already remained in custody for a period of 10 months and 19 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…” [2025:RJ-JP:12552] (3 of 3) [CRLR-452/2005] 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 conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 379 of IPC, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The petitioner is on bail. He need not to surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly. 8. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Keshav/7