[2025:RJ-JP:39483] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 671/2007 Kartar Singh son of Shri Dharam Singh resident of Village Baghor, Police Station Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner/accused Versus State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. N.A. Naqvi, Senior Adv. assisted by Mr. Happy Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Gupta, Public Prosecutor HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order 24/09/2025 : By way of filing instant revision petition under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the accused petitioner has challenged the judgment dt.28.08.2006 passed by Court of ld. Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate, No.2, Alwar, in Criminal Case No.280/2003, whereby ld. Magistrate had convicted & sentenced the petitioner as follows:- “For offence u/s.279 of I.P.C.: The petitioner was sentenced to undergo three months simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- & in default thereof to further undergo five days additional simple imprisonment. For offence u/s.304-A of I.P.C.: The petitioner was sentenced to undergo two years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.2000/- and in default thereof to further undergo 20-days additional simple imprisonment. The petitioner/accused has also challenged the judgment dt.28.06.2007 passed by Court of ld. Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track) No.2, Alwar, in Criminal Appeal No.18/2007, whereby the ld. Judge has partly allowed the appeal, affirmed the judgment of conviction & while modifying the judgment of sentence reduced the sentence qua offence under Section 304-A I.P.C. from two years simple [2025:RJ-JP:39483] (2 of 4) [CRLR-671/2007] imprisonment to six months simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/- and for offence under Section 279 I.P.C. from 05 days simple imprisonment to one month simple imprisonment (in case of default of payment of fine). Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner contends that the sentence, so awarded to the revisionist-petitioner was suspended by this Court vide its order dt.13.07.2007. 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 petitioner to the period already undergone by him. Counsel also contends that the petitioner had undergone detention for some period & he is facing agony of a long protracted litigation since 1988 and, therefore, he, makes a limited submission that 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. 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 judgments passed by both the ld. Courts below regarding conviction of the petitioner. Since the present revision petition against conviction is not pressed and after perusing the material nothing is noticed which [2025:RJ-JP:39483] (3 of 4) [CRLR-671/2007] 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 1988. The petitioner has already suffered the agony of protracted litigation, spanning over a period around 37 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 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 him. This Court is also conscious of the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Court 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 [2025:RJ-JP:39483] (4 of 4) [CRLR-671/2007] by the petitioner, where the sentence undergone by the petitioner is less than the minimum sentence prescribed by the relevant statute. 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 petitioner for the alleged offences, the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His 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