Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 689 (RAJ)

Raju Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2013-04-05

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record. 2. The instant revision has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 9.1.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar in appeal whereby the conviction and sentences as awarded to the petitioner by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, No. 2, Sri Ganganagar by his judgment dated 30.7.2005 were affirmed. The petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 454 I.P.C. and sentenced two years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to undergo 7 days S.I. The petitioner was also convicted for the offence under Section 380 I.P.C. and sentenced to two years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of fine to undergo seven days S.I. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. Learned counsel submits that in view of the cogent evidence available on record, he does not challenge the petitioner's conviction but prays that as the petitioner has remained in custody from 9.1.2006 to 18.12.2006 i.e. for a period of nearly 11 months and as the incident of theft took place in the year 2001, the sentence awarded to the petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 4. Learned P.P. has opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar. Perused the record. 6. As per the judgments of the courts below, the petitioner is not a habitual offender. The incident for which the petitioner was convicted took place way back in the year 2001 and nearly a period of 12 years has elapsed since then. The petitioner has already remained in custody for a period of nearly 11 months. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner back to custody. The sentence which the petitioner has suffered is sufficient in the opinion of this Court. 7. Accordingly, the revision is partly allowed. While upholding the petitioner's conviction for the offences under Sections 454 and 380 I.P.C., the sentences awarded to him are reduced to the period already undergone by him. The petitioner is already on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged.Record be sent back.Revision partly allowed. *******