Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 429 (RAJ)

Bhimraj v. State of Rajasthan

2003-03-24

SUNIL KUMAR GARG

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner against the judgment dated 21.2.1992 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 3, Jodhpur in Criminal Appeal No. 33/1991 by which he dismissed the appeal of the accused petitioner and upheld the judgment and order dated 19.7.1991 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur in Criminal Case No. 158/83 by which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted the accused petitioner for the offence u/s. 409 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for ten months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo ten days RI. 2. The facts giving rise to this revision petition, in short, are as follows:- PW-3 Bheru Singh lodged a report Ex.P/1 with the Police Station Udaimandir, Jodhpur on 17.8.1982 stating inter-alia that the accused petitioner was working as Post-man in the Post Office situated at Ratanada and on 10.8.1982, he was carrying a bag containing Rs. 2000/- and apart from that, some parcels and registries were also there and he misappropriated them. On that report, the police registered the case and started investigation. After usual investigation, police submitted challan against the accused petitioner in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur and thereafter, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur framed the charge for the offence u/s. 409 IPC against the accused petitioner and the same was read over and explained to the accused petitioner, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses and exhibited many documents. Thereafter, the statement of the accused petitioner u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. After conclusion of trial, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur through his judgment and order dated 19.7.1991 convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner for the offence u/s. 409 IPC in the manner as indicated above. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 19.7.1991 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur, the accused petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 3, Jodhpur and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 3, Jodhpur through his judgment dated 21.2.1992 dismissed the said appeal of the accused petitioner and upheld the judgment and order dated 19.7.1991 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur. Aggrieved from the said judgment dated 21.2.1992 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 3, Jodhpur and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 3, Jodhpur through his judgment dated 21.2.1992 dismissed the said appeal of the accused petitioner and upheld the judgment and order dated 19.7.1991 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur. Aggrieved from the said judgment dated 21.2.1992 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 3, Jodhpur, the accused petitioner has preferred this revision petition. 3. In this-revision petition, the learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner has not challenged the findings of conviction recorded by both the Courts below against the accused petitioner. However, on point of sentence, he has submitted that looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the facts that alleged incident took place in the year 1982 and now more than two decades have passed since than and that the accused petitioner has remained in jail for more than four months (8.3.1984 to 12.3.1984, 30.5.1991 to 19.7.1991 and 21.2.1992 to 16.5.1992), it would be just and proper to reduce the sentence of the accused petitioner to the period already undergone by him. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the case. 5. Since the findings of conviction recorded by both the Courts below against the accused petitioner have not been challenged in this revision petition, therefore, this revision petition against conviction is liable to be dismissed. 6. However, on sentence, looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the facts that the accused petitioner has remained in jail for more than four months (8.3.1984 to 12.3.1984, 30.5.1991 to 19.7.1991 and 21.2.1992 to 16.5.1992) and the alleged incident took place in the year 1982 and more than two decades have passed since then and that period is sufficient to exhaust anybody mentally, physically or economically, therefore, it would not be in the interest of justice to sent the accused petitioner now to jail and ends of justice would be met if the sentence of the accused petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him.Accordingly, this revision petition filed by the accused, petitioner against conviction is dismissed and the conviction of the accused petitioner for the offence u/s. 409 IPC recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur through judgment dated 19.7.1991 as confirmed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 3, Jodhpur in appeal vide his judgment dated 21.2.1992 is maintainedHowever on point of sentence, this revision petition is partly allowed and sentence awarded to the accused petitioner by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur through order dated 12.7.1991 as confirmed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 3, Jodhpur in appeal vide his judgment dated 21.2992 is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Since the accused petitioner is on bail, he need not surrender and his hail bonds stand cancelled.Revision petition partly allowed. *******