[2025:RJ-JP:20589] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 897/2006 Ram Gopal S/o Shri Somotya, Resident of Aukurund, Police Station Mahawa, District Dausa. ----Petitioner Versus The State of Rajasthan through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Umesh Choudhary, Adv. for Mr. S.L. Kumawat, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh, P.P. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 14/05/2025 1. This criminal revision petition under Sections 397 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgement dated 27.07.2006, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bandikui Camp Mahawa, District Dausa (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellate Court’) in Criminal Appeal No.64/2006, whereby the learned Appellate Court has partly allowed the appeal of the revisionist-petitioner affirming the order dated 25.10.2005 and set-aside the order of punishment of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Mahawa, District Dausa (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’). The learned trial court in Criminal Case No.100/2003, vide its order dated 25.10.2005, has convicted and sentenced the revisionist- petitioner, as under:- Under Section 279 IPC:-_ Three months rigorous imprisonment. Under Section 337 IPC:- Three months rigorous imprisonment. [2025:RJ-JP:20589] (2 of 2) [CRLR-897/2006] Under Section 338 IPC:-_ Six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month simple imprisonment. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revisionist-petitioner has deposited Rs.500/- on 22.11.2005 and Rs.19,500/- on 13.03.2020 as directed by the Appellate Court vide order dated 27.07.2006 and a factual report dated 13.05.2025 has been produced before this Court, in this regard. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner, however, makes a limited submission that while maintaining conviction for the offences under Sections 279, 337 & 338 of IPC and sentence of fine, the order of the Appellate Court may be quashed and set aside. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same. 4. In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and the fact that the revisionist-petitioner has deposited the compensation amount of Rs.20,000/- as awarded by the Appellate Court, the present criminal revision petition is partly allowed. Accordingly, while maintaining conviction of the petitioner for the offences 279, 337 & 338 of IPC and fine, the order of sentence dated 25.10.2005 passed by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned Appellate Court vide order dated 27.07.2006 are quashed and set aside. 5. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Ramesh Vaishnav/86/13