[2025:RJ-JP:6208] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1030/2004 Dilbagh Singh S/o Shri Mukhram, Resident of Pacheri Choti, Police Station Singhana, District Jhunjhunu. ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 12/02/2025 1. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner. 2. This revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with a challenge to order of conviction and sentence dated 13.08.2001 passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Khetri, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) in Criminal Case No.344/98 titled as ‘State Vs. Dilbagh Singh’ whereby the accused-petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 377 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo one years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo three months simple imprisonment. The petitioner has also assailed the order dated 30.10.2004 passed by the Court of learned Additional Session Judge, Khetri (Raj.) in Criminal Appeal No.27/2001, whereby, the appeal against the order of conviction and sentence was dismissed and upheld the order dated 13.08.2001. [2025:RJ-JP:6208] (2 of 2) [CRLR-1030/2004] 3. As per the cause title and the memo of this revision petition, when the revision petition was filed, the accused-petitioner was in judicial custody. The application for suspension of sentence filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 10.01.2005. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor was directed to call for the report as regards the custody period of the petitioner. He submits that as per the status report dated 10.02.2025 forwarded to the G.A. Office by the S.H.O. of concerned Police Station Buhana, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.), the accused-petitioner is alive and residing at his house in village. 5. The accused-petitioner was taken in custody after disposal of the appeal vide judgment dated 30.10.2004 and his application for suspension of sentence was also dismissed vide order dated 10.01.2005. As per the status report submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor, there is no record with the jail authorities as regards the custody of the petitioner. 6. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, might be the petitioner has undergone complete sentence. 7. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this revision petition is disposed of, taking into consideration the fact that petitioner has completed the sentence as ordered against him. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J DIVYA SAINI /3