Allowed

Satya Narayan v. State

Rajasthan HC4 Dec 2024CRLR/324/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision petition regarding an IPC conviction for cheating. Upon noting the petitioner had detained for 3 months and 14 days, the court reduced the total sentence to the period already undergone while maintaining the conviction and fine. Bail bonds were discharged.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to the period already undergone; conviction and fine maintained; petitioner on bail; bail bonds discharged.

Satya Narayan Vs State — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:50035]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.324/2005

¶4

Satya Narayan son of Shri Devilal, R/o Nehru Nagar, Kota Junction, Police Station Bheemganj Mandi, Kota (Raj.) (at present confined in District Jail Baran)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abdul Kalam khan, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jai Prakash Tiwari, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶11

Order

¶12

04/12/2024

¶13

The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1992 and the present criminal revision is pending since the year 2005.

¶14

This criminal revision petition under Sections 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the order dated 15.03.2005, passed by the learned Special Judge Schedule Caste and Schedule (Prevention of Atrocities) Case, Baran in Criminal Appeal No.14/2005, whereby the learned Appellate Court has upheld the judgment dated 14.10.2003 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baran in Criminal Case No.222/1999, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accusedpetitioner as under:-

¶15

Under Section 420 of IPC:-

¶16

Two years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, further

(2 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JP:50035]

[CRLR-324/2005]

ordered to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment.

¶21

Under Section 467 of IPC:-

¶22

Three years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, further ordered to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment.

¶23

Under Section 468 of IPC:-

¶24

Two years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, further ordered to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment.

¶25

Under Section 471 of IPC:-

¶26

One year rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, further ordered to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment.

¶27

Under Section 120-B of IPC:-

¶28

Three years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, further ordered to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment.

¶29

All sentences shall run concurrently.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sentence so awarded to the revisionist-petitioner was suspended by this Court vide order dated 22.06.2005, passed in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail (Suspension of Sentence) Application No.83/2005.

¶31

Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner, however, makes a limited submission that the petitioner has already remained in custody for a period of 3 months and 14 days, without making any interference on merits/conviction, the

(3 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JP:50035]

[CRLR-324/2005]

sentence awarded to the present revisionist-petitioner may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by him. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.

¶36

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:-

¶37

Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra)

¶38

“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.”

¶39

Haripada Das (Supra)

¶40

“…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…”

¶41

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 offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of 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 shall deposit the amount of fine imposed upon him within a period of one month in the trial Court from today. The

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JP:50035]

[CRLR-324/2005]

petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.

¶46

All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.

¶47

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶48

Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-5

Satya Narayan v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satya Narayan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harinarayan Vs State

Radharaman S/O Shri Laxman Gurjar, Vs State of Rajasthan

Hemant Kumar @ Golu S/O Shri Shankar Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

State Vs Latoor and Ors.

Gopal Krishna Vs State

Raghuveer Singh and Ors. Vs State