HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 70/2007 Poluram S/o Rama, R/o Chistiya Mohallah, Subhash Nagar, Ajmer (Presently confined in District Jail, Ajmer) ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Mohit Goyal, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Ashvin Garg, Adv. For Respondent : Ms. Arti Sharma, Dy.G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 28/05/2025 1. The instant criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 06.12.2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as learned 'Appellate Court') in Criminal Appeal No.337/2006 whereby learned Appellate Court rejected the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the appeal and consequently, the appeal filed by the revisionist-petitioner was dismissed and the order dated 27.02.2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class No.1, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as learned 'trial Court') in Criminal Case No.410/2000 was upheld, whereby learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the revisionist-petitioner for the offences punishable as under:- (2 of 4) [CRLR-70/2007] i. Under Section 279 of IPC-Three months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo 10 days' simple imprisonment, ii. Under Section 337 of IPC-Three months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo 10 days' simple imprisonment & iii.Under Section 338 of IPC-Six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo 10 days' simple imprisonment & iv. Under Section 304-A of IPC-One year's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo two months' simple imprisonment. 2. At the threshold, learned counsel for the revisionist- petitioner submitted that the revisionist-petitioner does not want to challenge the finding of conviction for the aforesaid offences against the revisionist-petitioner. However, as the case in hand relates to an incident occurred in the year 2000; the revisionist- petitioner was convicted and sentenced on 27.02.2006 by learned trial Court; the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the appeal filed by the revisionist-petitioner was dismissed on 06.12.2006 by learned trial Court; sentence of the revisionist- petitioner has already been suspended vide order dated 23.02.2007 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and the revisionist-petitioner suffered the agony of trial, appeal and revision for more than 25 years, therefore, learned counsel submitted that considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and considering the length of period of trial, appeal and revision petition, a liberal view be taken for the revisionist- petitioner and the sentence awarded to the revisionist-petitioner (3 of 4) [CRLR-70/2007] as aforesaid may be reduced and may be modified to the extent of sentence of imprisonment already undergone by him. 3. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Firoz Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2021) SCC Online SC 3221. 4. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-State opposed the prayer made on behalf of the revisionist-petitioner. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Admittedly, the occurrence of this case relates to the year 2000; the revisionist-petitioner was convicted and sentenced on 27.02.2006 and the present petition is pending since 2007. Vide order dated 23.02.2007, the Coordinate Bench of this Court while suspending the sentence of the revisionist-petitioner, recorded the fact that the revisionist-petitioner has served the sentence for about four months. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussions and considering the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Firoz (supra) and the fact that the revisionist-petitioner has served the sentence of about four months, the prayer made on behalf of the revisionist-petitioner is accepted and the present petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the revisionist-petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC, the sentence awarded to him is (4 of 4) [CRLR-70/2007] ordered to be reduced and modified to the extent of sentence already undergone by him. However, the amount of fine is hereby maintained. 8. It is ordered that the amount of fine shall be deposited by revisionist-petitioner before learned trial Court within a period of two months from passing of this order. It is also directed that in default of payment of fine by the revisionist-petitioner, he shall undergo further simple imprisonment of one month. 9. Any pending applications also stand disposed of. 10. Record of the Court below be sent back immediately. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J AARZOO ARORA /02