[2025:RJ-JP:34743] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 643/2006 Sultan Singh S/o Shiv Charan aged 40 years, Resident of Behind Municipal Board, Bharatpur (at present undergoing imprisonment in District Jail Bharatpur) ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chandra Mohan Ms. Priyanka For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jaiprakash Tiwari, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR JUDGMENT RESERVED ON :: 13/08/2025 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON :: 11/09/2025 1. The petitioner Sultan Singh has preferred this revision petition against the judgment dated 12.03.2001 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur in Criminal Case No.88/1993 whereby he has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Under Section 420 of IPC:- two years Rigorous Imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, further ordered to undergo two months’ Rigorous Imprisonment. Under Section 471 of IPC:- two years Rigorous Imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, further ordered to undergo two months’ Rigorous Imprisonment. Both the sentences were to run concurrently. [2025:RJ-JP:34743] (2 of 4) [CRLR-643/2006] 2. Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bharatpur in Criminal Appeal No.45/2003, which was dismissed on 16.06.2006 and the appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court. 3. Aggrieved with both the judgments, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition. 4. The brief facts giving rise to this case are that on 26.06.1989, one Dr. Nand Kishore Srivastava the then Dy. Chief Medical and Health Officer (Malaria) Bharatpur lodged an FIR at Police Station Kotwali, Bharatpur alleging that the petitioner submitted his joining report in his office on 12.08.1988 on the basis of forged order no. 632 dated 30.07.1988 of Joint Director, Medical and Health Services, Rajasthan Zone Jaipur. Considering that order as genuine one, the petitioner was allowed to join services. However, since the appointment order was on temporary basis for six months and a letter was written to Joint Director for his extension of services and he was directed to mark his attendance at Joint Director’s Office but the petitioner did not report on duty nor replied any orders of the Department. Later on it was found that appointment order of the petitioner was forged one. 5. After due investigation charge-sheet was filed against petitioner before the competent court. The trial court after considering the evidence adduced by the parties convicted and sentenced the petitioner as mentioned above and the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned appellate court hence this revision petition. [2025:RJ-JP:34743] (3 of 4) [CRLR-643/2006] 6. Heard the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not challenge the conviction of the petitioner and confined his arguments qua the quantum of sentence only. Learned counsel for the petitioner however makes a limited prayer that the petitioner is facing trial since 1989 and has remained in custody for four months and the petitioner has been removed from the service, therefore, he may be released for the period already undergone by him. 8. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions and stated that in the backdrop of the overall facts and circumstances of the case and well reasoned order passed by both the courts below, the petitioner is not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. 9. I have given my earnest consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and scanned the matter carefully. 10. On perusal of the judgments of both the courts below, this Court is of the considered view that the trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record while holding the petitioner guilty of offence under Section 420 and 471 of IPC. The appellate court has also after proper evaluation of material available on record rightly dismissed the appeal. Therefore, there is no illegality or perversity in the findings given by both the courts below which warrants any interference by this Court by invoking the revisional jurisdiction. [2025:RJ-JP:34743] (4 of 4) [CRLR-643/2006] 11. Even otherwise, learned counsel for the petitioner has not assailed the judgments of conviction and has restricted his arguments qua the quantum of sentence only. The conviction of petitioner is therefore affirmed. 12. In the light of limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, the present petition is partly allowed while maintaining the conviction of the present petitioner for the offence under Sections 420 and 471 of IPC as recorded by the learned courts below in the impugned judgments, this Court interferes only with the sentence part of the said judgments and considering that there is no criminal antecedents exists and fact of protracted trial since 1989, this Court is inclined to take a liberal view, thus for the reasons discussed above, while maintaining the conviction under Section 420 and 471 of IPC, the substantive sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by keeping the fine amount with the default imprisonment imposed by the courts below. 13. Consequently, this revision petition is disposed of accordingly. The petitioner is on bail, he need not surrender. His bail bonds stands discharged accordingly. 14. All pending applications stands disposed of. Record of the courts below be sent back forthwith. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J BRIJ MOHAN GANDHI 77/4