HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1540/2025 Pratap Singh S/o Sardar Singh Rawat, Aged About 70 Years, R/o Kabra, District Ajmer, Through Son Kripal Singh S/o Pratap Singh Age 32 Years R/o Kabra, District Ajmer. (At Present Confined At Central Jail Ajmer). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through Addl. Chief Secretary Department of Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Cabinet Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Joint Secretary, Govt of Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deshraj Kalwania For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia-PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 01/12/2025 1. By way of filing the instant criminal writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 14.02.2025 passed by the respondent No. 2 by which the application submitted by the petitioner seeking commutation of sentence has been rejected. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner faced trial for the offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 before the Court of Sessions Judge, Ajmer in Criminal Case No. 38/1984. He was found guilty vide judgment dated 30.03.1990 and was convicted for the above stated offences and has been sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. Counsel submits that aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment dated 30.03.1990 the (2 of 4) [CRLW-1540/2025] petitioner preferred an appeal before this Court i.e. S.B.Criminal Appeal No. 259/1990. However, the same was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 19.02.2018 and this Court was of the view that minimum sentence for the above stated offence is six months and a liberty was granted to the petitioner to file a representation with direction to the Government to decide the representation of the petitioner expeditiously. Counsel submits that sentence of the petitioner was suspended by this Court for a period of six months and it was observed that the petitioner was not required to surrender in the intervening period. Counsel submits that pursuant to the aforesaid order/direction issued by this Court, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation before the Government seeking commutation of his sentence. Counsel submits that the aforesaid representation of the petitioner has been decided by the Government vide impugned order dated 14.02.2025 in a cursory manner without assigning any reason. Thereafter, the petitioner surrendered before the Court of Sessions Judge, Ajmer to serve the remainder of the sentence on 28.03.2025. Counsel submits that now the petitioner has already served more than six months sentence. Therefore, a lenient view be taken in favour of the petitioner by commuting the sentence awarded to the petitioner. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer made by counsel for the petitioner and submits that it is the discretion of the Government to commute the sentence or not. The respondents have not committed any error in rejecting the representation submitted by the petitioner. Hence, interference of this Court is not warranted and the same is liable to be dismissed. (3 of 4) [CRLW-1540/2025] 4. Heard and considered the submission made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner was found guilty for the offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act by the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer vide judgment dated 30.03.1990. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing S.B.Criminal Appeal No. 259/1990 wherein a prayer was made by the petitioner to release him based on the sentence already served by him. However, looking to the fact that minimum sentence for the above stated offence is six months, this Court deemed it just and just and proper to dispose of the petition granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Government seeking commutation of sentence as the discretion/power lies with the Government. It appears that pursuant to the direction issued by this Court on 19.02.2018, a representation was submitted by the petitioner. However, the same has been rejected by the respondents vide impugned order dated 14.02.2025 in a cursory manner and without assigning any reason, a non-speaking order has been passed without application of mind. It is expected from the appropriate authorities to pass the orders such as the impugned order in a proper manner and detailed reasons are required to be assigned in the said order. 6. On this count alone, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. 7. The matter is remitted to the Government for passing appropriate orders looking to the fact that the age of the (4 of 4) [CRLW-1540/2025] petitioner is now 70 years and the incident pertains to the year 1984 and the petitioner has already served more than the minimum sentence i.e. six months. It is expected from the Government to take a lenient and sympathetic view in favour of the petitioner looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case in order to decide the representation of the petitioner expeditiously as early as possible, preferably within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present criminal writ petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/30