[2025:RJ-JP:27199] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 841/2006 1. Shyam Singh son of Prabhati, R/o Kaduki, Police Station Sadar, Alwar, District Alwar (Raj.) 2. Jagdish son of Prabhati, R/o Kaduki, Police Station Sadar, Alwar District Alwar (Raj.) 3. Pappu @ Hari Singh son of Prabhati, R/o Kaduki, Police Station Sadar, Alwar District Alwar (Raj.) (At present in District Jail, Alwar) ---Accused-Petitioners Versus The State of Rajasthan Through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, PP and Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 16/07/2025 1. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1997 and the present criminal revision is pending since the year 2006. 2. This criminal revision petition under Sections 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 19.07.2006, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track) No.2, Alwar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellate Court’) in Criminal Appeal No.03/2006, whereby the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal of the accused- appellants. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Alwar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’) in Criminal Case No.23/206/1999, vide its order dated 11.04.2005 has convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioners as under:- [2025:RJ-JP:27199] (2 of 3) [CRLR-841/2006] Under Section 332/34 of IPC :- Six months simple imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine, further ordered to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment to each accused-petitioners. Under Section 136 of Representation of People Act :- Six months simple imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine, further ordered to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment to each accused-petitioners. All sentences shall run concurrently. 3. The sentence so awarded to the revisionist-petitioners were suspended by this Court vide order dated 05.10.2006. 4. The petitioner Nos.2 Jagdish son of Prabhati and petitioner No.3 Pappu @ Hari Singh son of Prabhati, has died and proceedings against them are abated. 5. No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner No.1-Shyam Singh son of Prabhati, has remained in custody for a period of 2 months and 16 days, and a limited prayer has been made in the petition, that the sentence awarded to the present revisionist-petitioner may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by him. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the grant of any relief. 7. 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) [2025:RJ-JP:27199] (3 of 3) [CRLR-841/2006] “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…” 8. Keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, this court deems it appropriate to allow the present criminal revision petition. Accordingly, while maintaining conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 332/34 of IPC and Section 136 of Representation of People Act, the sentence awarded to petitioner No.1 is reduced to the period already undergone by him and imposition of fine by the trial court is maintained. The petitioner No.1 shall deposit the amount of fine imposed upon him within a period of one month in the trial Court from today. The petitioner No.1 is on bail and he need not to surrender. Accordingly, the bail bonds executed by the petitioner No.1 stand discharged. 9. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-14r