[2025:RJ-JP:5154] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 199/2006 Kanhiya Lal son of Shri Sugrain resident of Nandiya-kheri Police Station Jhalarapatan District Jhalawar (Rajasthan) ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lakhan Singh Jadaun, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, G.A.cum AAG with Mr. M.S. Shekhawat, Public Prosecutor HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order 05/02/2025 : By way of filing instant revision petition under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner/ accused has challenged the judgment dt.02.08.2005 passed by Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhalawar, in Criminal Regular Case No.339/2005 whereby ld. Magistrate has convicted the petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Section 379 of I.P.C. & sentenced him to undergo two year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2000/- & in default of payment thereof, to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. The petitioner/accused has also challenged the judgment dt.14.02.2006 passed by the Court Special Judge, Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jhalawar, in Criminal Appeal Nos.71/2005, whereby the ld. Judge, has partly allowed the appeal, while reducing the sentence from two years to one year simple imprisonment & fine from Rs.2000/- to Rs.1000/- & in default thereof to further undergo one month simple imprisonment. [2025:RJ-JP:5154] (2 of 4) [CRLR-199/2006] In compliance of the order dt.22.01.2025, learned Public Prosecutor for the State, has submitted the latest report of the whereabouts of the petitioner, which is taken on record. As per report, the petitioner is alive. As per prosecution case, the complainant-Chaitanya Kumar lodged an F.I.R. No.99/2005 at Police Station Kotwali, Jhalawar for offence u/s.379 of I.P.C. alleging therein that on 04.03.2005 his motorcycle bearing registration No.RJ-17-2-M-7905, which was parked at his residence inside the boundary wall, was stolen in the mid-night. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed & charges were framed against the petitioner for offence u/s.379 of I.P.C. The petitioner pleaded not guilty & claimed trial. He was examined u/s.313 of Cr.P.C. After considering the facts & circumstances of the case & the material made available on record, ld. Trial Court has convicted & sentenced the petitioner for the aforesaid offences vide its judgment dt.02.08.2005. The ld. Appellate Court, vide its judgment dt.14.02.2006 has modified the sentence awarded to the petitioner as aforesaid. Submissions of learned counsel appearing for the accused- petitioner are that the findings arrived at by the ld. Trial Court regarding conviction & sentence are patently illegal & perverse to the facts on record. The petitioner was on bail during trial & appeal. In the special circumstances where the matters are of extremely old pendency & unless there are aggravating circumstances, the same need not be revisited on merits and, thus, it is a fit case for interference of this Court for passing of an order reducing the sentence awarded to the petitioner to the period already undergone by him. Lastly, counsel submits that he shall not assail the conviction of the present petitioner and confines his arguments to the alternative prayer of reduction of sentence awarded by ld. trial Court. Hence, this petition may be partly [2025:RJ-JP:5154] (3 of 4) [CRLR-199/2006] allowed & the sentence awarded to petitioner be reduced to the period 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. 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, 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 2005. The petitioner has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a period of around 20-years and has been in the corridors of the Court for this prolonged period. He remained incarcerated for some time from 12.04.2005 to 26.05.2005 during trial and no other case is pending against the petitioner, 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 & Haripada Das Vs. State of West Bengal, (1998) 9SCC 678 and considering the facts & circumstances of the case, the age of the petitioner, his status 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 [2025:RJ-JP:5154] (4 of 4) [CRLR-199/2006] upon the petitioner deserves to 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 offence. The sentence, so 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. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. Record of the trial Court be sent back forthwith. (VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J. ASHOK/