[2025:RJ-JP:34148] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1065/2006 Subhash Chand son of Shri Bhida Singh, resident of Girsaiya Mohallah Deeg District Bharatpur (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner/accused Versus State of Rajasthan ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate for Mr. M.K. Kaushik, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, G.A. cum A.A.G. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order 27/08/2025 : Instant revision petition has been filed on behalf of accused/ petitioner under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved by the judgment dt.15.02.2003 passed by Court of ld. Judicial Magistrate, No.4, Bharatpur, in Criminal Case No.144/2002 whereby the petitioner has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 415/417 of I.P.C. & sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment, and for offence punishable u/s.471 I.P.C. sentenced to undergo two years simple imprisonment, as well as the judgment dt.06.09.2006 passed by Court of ld. Additional Sessions Judge, No.2, Bharatpur, in Criminal Appeal No.6/2003 whereby the appeal filed by petitioner has been partly allowed and the sentence was reduced to the period of one year simple imprisonment. Submissions of learned counsel appearing for the accused- petitioner are that there are material contradictions & inconsistencies in the statements of prosecution witnesses. The sentence, so awarded to petitioner was, however, suspended by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dt.04.10.2006. The petitioner deserves some [2025:RJ-JP:34148] (2 of 3) [CRLR-1065/2006] leniency as he has been constrained to undergo the ordeal of trial proceedings since the year, 1994, thereby suffering protracted litigation for an inordinate period of approximately 30 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 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 1994. The petitioner has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of more than 30 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 [2025:RJ-JP:34148] (3 of 3) [CRLR-1065/2006] 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 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