[2025:RJ-JP:17274] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1190/2006 1. Bunta Ram @ Buta Singh, s/o Suwa Ram, R/o Rewar, P.S. Gadi, District Jind (Haryana). 2. Balbir, s/o Neki Ram, r/o Kano, P.S. Agrawalmod, Hisar (Haryana). 3. Satyan, s/o Roop Chand, r/o Renakpura Khokhra Kot, P.S. City Rohtak (Haryana). 4. Ram Mehar, s/o Ramji Lal, r/o Sulchani, P.S. Narnod, District Hisar (Haryana). (At present in Central jail at Jaipur). ----petitioners Versus State of Rajasthan, through P.P. ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1189/2006 1. Balbeer s/o Neki Ram, R/o Kano, P.S. Agrawa Mod Hisar (Haryana). 2. Satyavan s/o Roopchand, r/o Renakpura Khokhara Kot. P.S. City Rohtak (Haryana). (At present in District Jail Jhunjhunu) ----petitioners Versus State of Rajasthan, through P.P. ----Respondent For petitioners(s) : Mr. Karan Sighal for Mr. Ashutosh Bhatia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 23/04/2025 1. These matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 2005 and the present criminal revision petitions are pending since the year 2006. [2025:RJ-JP:17274] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1190/2006] 2. These criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C., have been preferred against the judgment dated 20.04.2006, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellate Court’) in Criminal Appeal No.11/2006, whereby the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal of the accused-appellants. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’) in Criminal Case No.204/2005, vide its order dated 12.01.2006 has convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioners as under:- Under Section 379 of IPC:- Two years rigorous imprisonment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the sentence so awarded to the revisionist-petitioners were suspended by this Court vide order dated 20.10.2006. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioners, however, makes a limited submission that the petitioners have already remained in custody for a period: No. Name of Accused-petitioners Period of Custody Undergone 1. Bunta Ram @ Buta Singh 15 months & 10 days 2. Balbir, s/o Neki Ram 15 months & 10 days 3. Satyan, s/o Roop Chand 15 months & 7 days 4. Ram Mehar, s/o Ramji Lal 15 months & 7 days and without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present revisionist-petitioners may be [2025:RJ-JP:17274] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1190/2006] substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by them. 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 will be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone…” 7. In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioners and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, this present criminal revision petitions are allowed. Accordingly, while maintaining conviction of the petitioners for the offences under Sections 379 of IPC, the sentence awarded to them are reduced to the period already undergone by them and imposition of fine by the trial court is maintained. The petitioners shall deposit the amount of fine imposed upon them within a period of one month in the trial Court from today. The petitioners [2025:RJ-JP:17274] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1190/2006] are on bail and need not to surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged accordingly. 8. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Keshav/15-16