[2025:RJ-JP:17273] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1044/2006 Shivraj @ Shivda s/o Shri Shankarlal, R/o Kalion-ki-dhani9, lavadar, PS Dagana, District Nagaur, at present lodged in Central jail Ajmer. ----Petitioner Versus The State of Rajasthan, through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.R. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 23/04/2025 1. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 2005 and the present criminal revision is pending since the year 2006. 2. This criminal revision petition under Sections 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 28.08.2006, passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Ajmer,(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellate Court’) in Criminal Appeal No.101/2006, whereby the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal of the accused- appellant filed against the judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Pushkar, District Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’) in Criminal Case No.365/2005, vide its order dated 14.07.2005 has convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner as under:- [2025:RJ-JP:17273] (2 of 3) [CRLR-1044/2006] Under Section 379 of IPC:- Two years simple imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine, further ordered to undergo one month imprisonment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sentence so awarded to the revisionist-petitioner was suspended by this Court vide order dated 13.10.2006. 4. No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner has remained in custody for a period of 5 months and 15 days, and a limited prayer has been made in the petition, that the sentence awarded to the present revisionist-petitioner may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by him. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same. 6. 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 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 [2025:RJ-JP:17273] (3 of 3) [CRLR-1044/2006] will be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone…” 7. Keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, this court deems it appropriate to allow the present criminal revision petition. Accordingly, while maintaining conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 379 of IPC, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him and imposition of fine by the trial court is maintained. The petitioner shall deposit the amount of fine imposed upon him within a period of one month in the trial Court from today. The petitioner is on bail and he need not to surrender. Accordingly, the bail bonds executed by the petitioner stand discharged. 8. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Keshav/13