[2025:RJ-JP:34191] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 455/2007 Chanda Lal son of Shri Lalu Ram, Resident of Khanuj Police Station Phagi District Jaipur. ----Petitioner/accused Versus State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Anzum Parveen, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Gupta, Public Prosecutor HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order 27/08/2025 : By way of filing instant revision petition under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner/ accused, namely Chandalal has challenged the judgment dt.09.09.2004 passed by the Court of ld. Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Malpura District Tonk, in Criminal Regular Case No.937/98 (366/93) whereby ld. Magistrate had convicted & sentenced the petitioner as follows:- “For offence u/s. 3/181 of M.V. Act : The petitioner was sentenced to undergo one month simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo seven days additional simple imprisonment. For offence u/s. 279 I.P.C. : The petitioner was sentenced to undergo three months imprisonment with fine of Rs.400/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15-days additional imprisonment. For offence u/s. 304-A I.P.C. : The petitioner was sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.3000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months additional imprisonment. For offence u/s.337 I.P.C.: The petitioner was sentenced to undergo three months imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 7-days imprisonment. For offence u/s. 338 I.P.C. : The petitioner was sentenced to undergo one year imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month additional imprisonment. [2025:RJ-JP:34191] (2 of 4) [CRLR-455/2007] All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.” The petitioner/accused has also challenged the judgment dt.18.04.2007 passed by the Court of ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Malpura, Tonk, in Criminal Appeal Nos.23/2004 whereby the ld. Judge, has dismissed the appeal while maintaining the order of conviction under Sections 304-A, 337, 338 & 279 of I.P.C. & Section 3/181 of M.V. Act, & reducing the sentence for offences u/s.304-A I.P.C. from two years to six months rigorous imprisonment and fine from Rs.3000/- to Rs.2500/- & default thereof from three months to two-&-half month additional imprisonment, and for offences under Section 338 of I.P.C. from one year imprisonment to four months rigorous imprisonment and fine from Rs.500/- to Rs.200/- and default thereof from one month to 20-days additional imprisonment. Submissions of learned counsel appearing for the accused- petitioner are that are that there are material contradictions & inconsistencies in the statements of prosecution witnesses. The petitioner was on bail during trial & appeal. The sentence, so awarded to petitioner was, however, suspended by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dt.31.05.2007. The petitioner deserves some leniency as he has been constrained to undergo the ordeal of trial proceedings since the year, 1993, thereby suffering protracted litigation for an inordinate period of approximately 31 years. Last submission is that ld. Counsel shall not assail the conviction of the petitioner and confines his arguments to the alternative prayer of reduction of sentence awarded by ld. trial Court to the period already undergone by him. Hence, this petition be partly allowed & the sentence awarded to petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone by him. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, has submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the [2025:RJ-JP:34191] (3 of 4) [CRLR-455/2007] 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 learned counsel for the rival parties at length. Perused the impugned judgments and the entire record of the case. 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 interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment 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 1993. The petitioner has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of more than 31 years and has been in the corridors of the Court for this prolonged period. He remained incarcerated for some time, hence, the case of the petitioner deserves 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 petitioner in the society and the fact that he faced financial hardship and he 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 petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone by him. Looking to the facts & circumstances of the present case & considering the submissions made at bar, more particularly the long [2025:RJ-JP:34191] (4 of 4) [CRLR-455/2007] pendency of the case & the old date of alleged incident as well as keeping in mind the precedent laws (supra), the revision petition is partly allowed, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the alleged offences. However, the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly. Record be sent to the trial Court. (VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J ASHOK