Allowed

Abdul Aziz @ Ajji v. State

Rajasthan HC6 Mar 2024CRLR/166/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan heard a criminal revision petition challenging a conviction and sentence reduction order. Relying on Supreme Court precedents regarding prolonged trial delays, the Court allowed the revision, reduced the sentence to the time already undergone by the appellant, maintained the conviction, and discharged bail bonds.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to the period already undergone; conviction maintained; fine imposed; bail bonds discharged.

Abdul Aziz @ Ajji Vs State — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:11670]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 166/2005

¶4

Abdul Aziz @ Ajji s/o Shri Abdul Majid, R/o Kheratio Ka Mohalla, Chokdi Ghatgate, Police Station Ramganj, Jaipur. (At present confined at Central Jail, Jaipur)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr.SS Mehla, Public Prosecutor

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶11

Order

¶12

06/03/2024

¶13

The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1995 and the present criminal revision is pending since the year 2005.

¶14

This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 05.09.2005 passed by learned Special Court (Sati Niwaran) Rajasthan & Upper Session Court, Jaipur in Criminal Appeal No.63/2002, whereby, the learned Appellate Court while partly allowing the appeal of the accused-petitioner has upheld the judgment of conviction dated 05.08.2002 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate No.9, Jaipur in Criminal Case No.52/1999 and reduced the sentence as under:-

(2 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:11670]

[CRLR-166/2005]

Section 457 IPC :

One year's imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment, further undergo seven days' simple imprisonment.

¶20

Section 380 IPC :

¶21

One year's imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment, further undergo seven days' simple imprisonment.

¶22

Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner submits that the sentence so awarded to the revisionist-petitioner was suspended by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 08.04.2005 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail (Suspension of Sentence) Application No.31/2005.

¶23

Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner, however, makes a limited submission that the petitioner has already remained in custody for a period of 7 months and 15 days, without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present revisionist-petitioner may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by them.

¶24

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.

¶25

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:-

¶26

Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra)

¶27

“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.”

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:11670]

[CRLR-166/2005]

Haripada Das (Supra)

¶32

“…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…”

¶33

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 conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Sections 457 & 380 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 is on bail. He need not to surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.

¶34

Any pending application stands disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.

¶35

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶36

Preeti Asopa /13

Abdul Aziz @ Ajji v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Aziz @ Ajji v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pushpendra Mohan Pathak Son of Shri Jagdish Prasad Pathak Vs Rambabu Gupta Son of Late Shri Nanagram

Indernath Tandon S/O Shri Suanath Tandon, Vs Mahendra Kumar Chauhan S/O Shri Manibhai Gujrati

Mahipal S/O Bhagwanaram, Vs State of Rajasthan

Gaurishankar Sharma S/O Shri Brijkishore Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Roberto Della Valle Vs State

Sanjay Vs State