[2025:RJ-JP:42927] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1184/2007 Ladhuram Bawari S/o Shri Gopiram Bawari, R/o Village Bagot, Police Station Pipalla, Teshil Prawatsar, District Nagour ----Petitioner Versus Union of India through Public Prosecutor, C.B.I, New Delhi ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohit Balwada with Mr. Aditya Raj & Mr. Sunil Shekhawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shyam Singh Yadav, Spl. PP for C.B.I with Mr. Tarun Yadav HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 27/10/2025 1. The present revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the accused-petitioner – Ladhuram Bawari against Judgment and Order dated 16.10.2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur in Criminal Appeal No. 8/2006 (Ladhuram Bawari Vs. Union of India through Public Prosecutor, C.B.I) vide which criminal appeal filed by the accused-petitioner qua his conviction for the offence under Section 409 IPC as recorded by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (S.P.E. Cases) Jaipur District, Jaipur vide its judgment and order dated 16.05.1985 in Criminal Case No. 10/83 (State vs. Ladhuram Bawari) is dismissed, whereas the sentence awarded to him by the trial court for the offence under Section 409 of I.P.C., as mentioned below, is modified. [2025:RJ-JP:42927] (2 of 6) [CRLR-1184/2007] Offence Sentence awarded by the trial court Sentence modified by the appellate court under Section 409 IPC to undergo 9 months S.I. with fine of Rs.250/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month S.I. to undergo 3 months S.I. with fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days S.I. 2. Facts of the case in short are that one Laduram was posted as a Branch Manager in Jaipur Nagaur Anchalik Gramin Bank, Bagot and Mr. Ramkaran Sahu (PW 6) was posted as a Branch Manager in Jaipur Nagaur Anchalik Gramin Bank, Prabatsar Branch. Mr. Ram Karan Sahu proceeded on leave from 3.11.1982 to 13.12.1982, therefore, the accused-petitioner was posted as officiating Branch Manager in place of Mr. Ramkaran Sahu and pursuant thereto, on 3.11.1982, the accused petitioner took over the charge of Branch Manager, Jaipur Nagaur Anchalik Gramin Bank, Parbatsar Branch. On 13.12.1982 when Ram Karan Sahu returned from leave, accused-petitioner handed over charge to him. It was alleged that when accused-petitioner was working as an Officiating Branch Manager then on 10.12.1982 accused- petitioner prepared a transfer voucher of Rs. 2000/- and fraudulently transferred the said amount from the account of Ram Karan Sahu in his bank account and later-on, withdrew the same from his own account. On 13.12.1982, when Ram Karan Sahu took over the charge, he came to know about it, he asked the petitioner to return the amount, but on refusal by the accused petitioner, Ram Karan Sahu wrote a letter dated 1.1.1983 to the accused petitioner and a copy whereof was sent to Head Office. In [2025:RJ-JP:42927] (3 of 6) [CRLR-1184/2007] this view of the matter, the accused petitioner was said to have committed the offence under Section 409 IPC. 3. The court below framed charges against the accused petitioner for the offence under section 409 IPC, in the alternative for the offence under Section 420 IPC. The accused petitioner denied the charges and claimed for trial. After conclusion of trial, the trial court passed judgment and order dated 16.05.1985 convicting and sentencing him for the offence under Section 409 IPC. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal and the appellate court vide its judgment dated 16.10.2007 dismissed the appeal qua conviction of the petitioner for the said offence but modified the sentence as awarded by the trial court. Hence, this criminal revision petition has been preferred by the accused-petitioner. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. After arguing the matter on merits at some length, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner does not want to press instant revision petition challenging judgments passed by the courts below qua conviction and prefers to make submissions on the point of sentence only. 6. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has submitted that incident in the present case took place way back in the year 1982 i.e. around 43 years ago; accused-petitioner was 26 years of age at the time of incident and now he is around 69 years old and facing agony of trial for the past about 43 years; accused- petitioner who is sole bread earner in the family, belongs to poor strata of society and remained in police and judicial custody for a period of 27 days and there is no previous conviction recorded [2025:RJ-JP:42927] (4 of 6) [CRLR-1184/2007] against the accused-petitioner, therefore, he prays that ends of justice would meet if a lenient view is taken in the matter and sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused-petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 7. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Atul M. Pareekh vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (Criminal Appeal No. 117/2017) decided on 01.11.2023 and in Suman Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 1382/2009) decided on 03.09.2015 and the judgments rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the cases of Radhey Shyam Sharma Vs. State (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 201/2001) decided on 21.05.2015 and Surindra Singh vs. State Of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 674/2002) decided on 04.05.2023. 8. Per contra, learned Special public prosecutor while opposing the revision petition, submits that looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the well reasoned speaking orders passed by the courts below, sentence awarded by the trial court and modified by the appellate court cannot be said to be disproportionate, therefore, no interference in sentence is warranted in this case. 9. I have considered the arguments advanced at the Bar and have gone through judgments passed by both the courts below and record of the case. 10. Since the revision petition against conviction of the accused- petitioner is not pressed on merits and after perusing the record, [2025:RJ-JP:42927] (5 of 6) [CRLR-1184/2007] nothing is noticed which requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by the courts below. This Court does not wish to interfere in the judgments passed by courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner. Accordingly, the judgments passed by the courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner are maintained. 11. As far as quantum of sentence is concerned, after perusing judgments and orders impugned, considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties; precedent law on the issue; accused-petitioner, who was only 26 years of age at the time of incident, has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of more than 43 years and he remained incarcerated for some time after passing of the judgment, and no evidence regarding previous conviction of the accused-petitioner is produced on record, this Court is of the opinion that if at this stage, he is sent behind bars the family of the petitioner will also suffer, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending him to jail now. 12. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:42927] (6 of 6) [CRLR-1184/2007] 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…” 13. Consequently, the judgments dated 16.10.2007 and 16.05.1985 passed by both the courts below qua conviction of the accused-petitioner for the offence under Sections 409 of I.P.C. are affirmed but the quantum of sentence awarded to the accused- petitioner by the trial court and modified by the appellate court is reduced to the period already undergone by him, which would be sufficient and justifiable to serve interest of justice. The accused- petitioner is on bail. He need not to surrender. His bail bonds be cancelled. 14. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. 15. A copy of this order along with records be sent to the trial court forthwith. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J ANU /19