[2025:RJ-JP:31786] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 753/2007 1. Bantu Son of Bissu 2. Rakesh @ Nakalu Son of Shivlal Both are resident of Village Kanjoli, Police Station Sewar, District Bharatpur. (At present confined in Sewar Jail, Bharatpur) ----Petitioners Versus State of Rajasthan Through P.P. ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1110/2007 Hukam Singh Son of Samanta, Resident of Village Kanjoli, Police Station Sewar, District Bharatpur. (At present confined in Sewar Jail, Bharatpur) ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan Through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kapil Nagayach, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh, Public Prosecutor. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 13/08/2025 1. These matters pertain to an incident which occurred in the year 1999 and the present criminal revisions are pending since the year 2007. 2. These criminal revision petitions under Section 397 Cr.P.C. read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. have been preferred against the judgment dated 06.07.2007, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bharatpur in Criminal Appeal Nos.47/2006, [2025:RJ-JP:31786] (2 of 3) [CRLR-753/2007] whereby, the learned Appellate Court has upheld the judgment dated 09.07.2003, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, No.2, Bharatpur in Criminal Case No.112/2000, whereby the revisionist-petitioners were convicted and sentenced as under:- Under Section 392 IPC:_ Two years rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo for one month simple imprisonment. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioners submits that the sentence so awarded to the revisionist-petitioners Bantu & Rakesh was suspended by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 27.07.2007 on the prayer made in the criminal revision petition and vide order dated 27.03.2008, sentence of the revisionist- petitioner Hukam Singh was suspended by this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.65/2007. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioners, however, makes a limited submission that the petitioners have already remained in custody for a period of 2 months & 10 days (Bantu); 2 months (Rakesh @ Nakalu) and 31 days (Hukam Singh), without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentences awarded to the present revisionist-petitioners may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by them. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners. 6. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra : (2012) 2 SCC 648 and [2025:RJ-JP:31786] (3 of 3) [CRLR-753/2007] 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 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 petitioners and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, the present criminal revision petition is allowed. Accordingly, while maintaining conviction of the petitioners for the aforesaid offences, the sentences awarded to them are reduced to the period already undergone by them and imposition of fine by the trial court is maintained. The petitioners are on bail. Each of them need not to surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged accordingly. 8. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Ramesh Vaishnav /86 16-17