[2025:RJ-JP:39464] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 64/2007 Lallu Lal Yadav S/o Shri Prahlad Kumar Yadav, R/o Near Power House, Renwal Road, Chomu District Jaipur. (Accused-petitioner Central Jail Jaipur.) ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nachiketa Pareek, Adv. Mr. Prem Chand Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, PP Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 24/09/2025 1. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1997 and the present criminal revision is pending since the year 2007. 2. This criminal revision petition under Sections 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 27.10.2006, passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge Jaipur, District Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellate Court’) in Criminal Appeal No.49/2006, whereby the learned Appellate Court has partly allowed the appeal of the accused-appellant and reduced the sentence to 9 months passed the learned trial Court. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Chomu, District Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’) in Criminal Case No.441/2004 (696/1997), vide its [2025:RJ-JP:39464] (2 of 3) [CRLR-64/2007] order dated 09.03.2006 has convicted and sentenced the accused- petitioner as under:- Under Section 454 of IPC :- One year simple imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of payment of fine, further ordered to undergo two months simple imprisonment to each accused-petitioner. Under Section 380 of IPC :- One year simple imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of payment of fine, further ordered to undergo two months simple imprisonment to each accused-petitioner. All sentences shall run concurrently. 3. The sentence so awarded to the revisionist-petitioner was suspended by this Court vide order dated 25.01.2007. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner-Lallu Lal Yadavi, has remained in custody for a period of about 03 months and 15 days, and a limited prayer has been made in the petition, that the sentence awarded to the present revisionist-petitioner may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by him. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same. 6. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra : (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. : (1998) 9 SCC 678, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:- Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra) “There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the [2025:RJ-JP:39464] (3 of 3) [CRLR-64/2007] ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances.” Haripada Das (Supra) “…considering the fact that the respondent had already undergone detention for some period and the case is pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered both financial hardship and mental agony and also considering the fact that he had been released on bail as far back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice will be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone…” 7. In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, the present criminal revision petition is allowed. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 454 and 380 of IPC, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him and imposition of fine by the trial court is maintained. The petitioner shall deposit the amount of fine imposed upon him within a period of one month in the trial Court from today. The petitioner is on bail. He needs not to surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly. 8. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-10