[2025:RJ-JP:34202] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1361/2007 1. Nortya son of Shri Balaram aged about 55 years 2. Pappu son of Shri Surjyaram, aged about 25 years both residents of Village Bhopala Police Station Thanagaji District Alwar ----Petitioners/accused Versus State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohar Pal Meena, Advocate & Mr. Kishan Lal Meena, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Gupta, Public Prosecutor HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order 27/08/2025 : By way of filing instant revision petition under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the accused/ petitioners have challenged the judgment dt.26.05.2007 passed by the Court of ld. Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Rajgarh, Alwar, in Criminal Regular Case No.63/1996 whereby ld. Magistrate had convicted & sentenced the petitioners as follows:- “For offences u/Sections 9, 27, 29, 31, 39, 50 & 51 of the Indian Wild Animal Act, 1972 :- The petitioners were sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month additional simple imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.” The petitioners/accused have also challenged the judgment dt.15.12.2007 passed by Court of ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, District Alwar, in Criminal Appeal Nos.06/2007 whereby the ld. Judge, has partly allowed the appeal while maintaining the order of conviction under Sections 27/51 & 31/51 of the Indian Wild Animal Act, 1972 & reducing the sentence for offences under Sections 27/51 & [2025:RJ-JP:34202] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1361/2007] 31/51 of the Indian Wild Animal Act, 1972 from one year to six months simple imprisonment and fine from Rs.200/- to Rs.100/-. In compliance of the order dt. 30.07.2025 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, learned Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted the Custody Certificate of the petitioners, which is taken on record. Submissions of learned counsel appearing for the accused- petitioners are that there are material contradictions & inconsistencies in the statements of prosecution witnesses. The petitioners were on bail during trial & appeal. The sentence, so awarded to petitioners were, however, suspended by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dt.03.01.2008. The petitioners deserve some leniency as they have been constrained to undergo the ordeal of trial proceedings since the year, 1994, thereby suffering protracted litigation for an inordinate period of approximately 30 years. Last submission is that ld. Counsel shall not assail the conviction of the petitioners and confines his arguments to the alternative prayer of reduction of sentence awarded by ld. trial Court to the period already undergone by them. Hence, this petition be partly allowed & the sentence awarded to petitioners be reduced to the period already undergone by them. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor appearing 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. However, he did not seriously dispute the submission regarding reduction of sentence. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties at length. Perused the impugned judgments and the entire record of the case. [2025:RJ-JP:34202] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1361/2007] 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 and affirmed by the appellate 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 1994. The petitioners have already suffered the agony of protracted litigation, spanning over a period of more than 30 years and has been in the corridors of the Court for this prolonged period. They remained incarcerated for some time, hence, the case of the petitioners deserve 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 and Haripada Das Vs. State of West Bengal, (1998) 9 SCC 678 and considering the facts & circumstances of the case, status of the petitioners in the society and the fact that they faced financial hardship and they had to go through mental agony, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met, if sentence imposed upon the petitioners be reduced to the period already undergone by them. 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 petitioners for the alleged offences. However, the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioners is reduced to the period [2025:RJ-JP:34202] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1361/2007] already undergone by them. The petitioners are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged accordingly. Record be sent to the trial Court. (VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J ASHOK