[2025:RJ-JP:32825] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 666/2006 1. Aasu, aged 24 years, S/o Shri Taju Khan, R/o Village Mouliya, Police Station Lamangarh, District Alwar (Rajasthan). 2. Nasru, aged 27 years, S/o Shri Subedar, R/o Village Jindoli, Police Station Khairthal, District Alwar (Rajasthan) 3. Geela @ Sumer, aged 38 years, S/o Shri Bhukkal, R/o Village Mouliya, Police Station Laxmangarh, District Alwar (Rajasthan) At present in Jail Alwar. ----Petitioners Versus The State of Rajasthan through the Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harendra Singh, Adv. For Mr. Biri Singh, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Addl.GA Mr. Devi Singh, Dy.GA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 20/08/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1-Aasu has expired. 2. In view of the statement made, this revision petition is disposed of being abated with regard to petitioner No.1. 3. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioners challenging the judgment dated 19.06.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Laxmangarh, District Alwar (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned Appellate Court') in Criminal Appeal No.04/2006, whereby learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and order dated 03.02.2006 [2025:RJ-JP:32825] (2 of 4) [CRLR-666/2006] passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Laxmangarh, District Alwar (hereinafter referred to as 'learned trial Court') in Criminal Regular Case No.253/2000, whereby, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the present petitioners as under:- Sr. No. Name of Accused- Petitioner Conviction under Section Fine Sentence 1. Aasu 392 of IPC Rs.100/- 1 year R.I. and in default 1 month additional S.I. 2. Nasru 392 of IPC Rs.100/- 1 year R.I. and in default 1 month additional S.I. 3. Geela @ Sumer 392 of IPC Rs.100/- 1 year R.I. and in default 1 month additional S.I. 4. As per brief facts of the case, complainant Khusi Ram was going on his motor cycle from village Baroda Mev to his village and on the way the petitioners stopped him and snatched his motor-cycle by hitting him with the butt of the gun. Thus, an FIR was lodged against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC. 5. During the course of trial, prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses. The petitioners were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. After completion of the trial, learned trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 03.02.2006, convicted the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC and sentenced as aforesaid. 6. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Court, which dismissed the Criminal Appeal No.04/2006 filed by the petitioners [2025:RJ-JP:32825] (3 of 4) [CRLR-666/2006] vide judgment dated 19.06.2006, hence upheld the conviction and sentence of the trial. Therefore, the present revision petition. 7. At the threshold, learned counsel for the petitioner Nos. 2&3 do not want to challenge the findings of the conviction for the aforesaid offence against the petitioners. Learned counsel submits that the occurrence relates back to the year 2000 and petitioner Nos. 2&3 have served the sentence for about three and a half month, out of total sentence of one year. Learned counsel prays that while maintaining the conviction, the sentence awarded to the petitioners be suspended to the extent of period of incarcenation already undergone by them. 8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. It is undisputed fact that the occurrence had taken place in the year 2000; learned trial Court decided the matter on 03.02.2006; learned Appellate Court decided the appeal vide order dated 19.06.2006 and this revision petition is pending for the last 19 years, therefore, petitioner Nos. 2&3 suffered the agony of trial, appeal and revision for the last more than 25 years. Therefore, looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that petitioner Nos. 2&3 have remained in custody for about three and a half month, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court and confirmed by the learned Appellate Court be reduced to the period already undergone by petitioner Nos. 2&3. [2025:RJ-JP:32825] (4 of 4) [CRLR-666/2006] 11. Considering the limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioner Nos. 2&3 and the fact that they have suffered the agony and trauma of trial, appeal and this petition for the last about 25 years and the present petition is pending since 2006. 12. Accordingly, the present petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC, the sentence awarded to them is ordered to be reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, the petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 shall be liable to pay the fine imposed by the learned trial Court and upheld by the learned Appellate Court. It is ordered that the amount of fine i.e., Rs.100/- each shall be deposited by the petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 within three months from passing of this order. It is also directed that in default of payment of fine by petitioner Nos. 2 & 3, they shall undergo simple imprisonment of one month. Petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 are on bail. Their bail bonds stand discharged accordingly. 13. Pending applications, (if any) also stand disposed of accordingly. 14. Record of the trial Court be sent back. 15. A copy of this order be sent to learned trial Court for compliance. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J Mohita /6