Single judge bench allowed part of the criminal revision petition, reducing the sentence to the period already undergone and discharging bail bonds for a septuagenarian convicted of cheating, citing prior detention and premature filing.
The sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. The petitioner need not surrender. Bail bonds stand discharged.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2024:RJ-JP:1751]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 632/2001
Shiv Charan S/o Sh. Michuva Ram, R/o Village Kachhipura, Police Station Mansalpur, Distt. Karauli, Rajasthan (Accused in District Jail Karauli)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nikhil Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant Sharma, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order
10/01/2024
(2 of 3)
[2024:RJ-JP:1751]
[CRLR-632/2001]
interference on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present revisionist-petitioner may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by him.
wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:-
Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra)
“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.”
Haripada Das (Supra)
“...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 17-11986, 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...”
year 1992 and this revision petition has been pending since year 2001.
(3 of 3) [CRLR-632/2001]
[2024:RJ-JP:1751]
(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J
SAHIL SONI /1
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the sentence awarded to the revisionist-petitioner can be substituted with the period already undergone.
Whether the petitioner, being a septuagenarian who has already undergone detention and deposited the alleged amount, requires judicial custody or bail discharge.
Whether the revision petition can be allowed in part while maintaining the conviction for Section 409 IPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of MaharashtraReferred¶19
(2012) 2 SCC 648 · Who else cites this
Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B.Referred¶19
(1998) 9 SCC 678 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Shiv Charan
State of Rajasthan
Vinod Kumar Bharwani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Vinod Kumar Bharwani
Parties & counsel
