Partly allowed

Keval Ram v. State

Rajasthan HC3 Apr 2024CRLR/734/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision petition, the High Court reduced the sentences of a petitioner convicted of cheques forgery and use of a forged document to the period already undergone, citing the long pendency of the case since 1986, while maintaining the conviction and discharging bail bonds.

What did the court decide?

Sentences reduced to the period already undergone; conviction maintained; bail bonds discharged; record sent back.

Keval Ram Vs State — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:14848]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 734/2004

¶4

Keval Ram S/o Rama Ji, R/o Morda, Tehsil Ahore, District Jalore.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Rajasthan.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Praveen Vyas
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Laxman Solanki,PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

¶11

ORDER

¶12

03/04/2024

¶13

This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 08.10.2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore in Cr. Appeal No.15/2003(59/1997) whereby, the judgment dated 01.07.1997 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore in Cr.Original Case No.396/1992(288190) was upheld. The present

¶14

petitioner was convicted and sentenced as below:

¶15

Conviction for offences under Sections:	Sentences:
467 of the IPC	One year’s RI with a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 months’ additional RI.
468 of the IPC	One year’s RI with a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 months’ additional RI.
471 of the IPC	One year’s RI with a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 months’ additional RI.

¶16

All substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently

[2024:RJ-JD:14848]

[CRLR-734/2004]

(2 of 4)

Facts in brief apparent from the record of the case are that on 29.09.1986, Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Ahore, District Jalore submitted a written report to the SHO Police Station Nausra alleging inter alia that the Sub Division Officer Jalore had submitted an inspection report along with the statements of the witnesses and original muster roll directing him to get an FIR registered against the present petitioner on the ground that he had committed default in making payments to certain laborers who had allegedly executed certain works as per the muster roll. On the basis of the said written report, an FIR No.57/1986 was registered at Police Station Nausra, District Jalore for the offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC and investigation was commenced. After filing of the charge sheet and upon completion of the trial, the petitioner was convicted by the learned trial court below for the above mentioned offences vide judgment dated 01.07.1997 which was upheld by the learned appellate court vide judgment dated 08.10.2004.

¶21

Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner submitted that the sentences so awarded to the revisionist-petitioner were suspended by this Court, vide order dated 13.10.2004 in S.B.Cr. Misc. Bail (Suspension of Sentences) Application No.734/2004.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has undergone detention for some period and the case is pending against him since 1986. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is facing agony of a long protracted trial and therefore, without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentences awarded to the present

¶23

(3 of 4) [CRLR-734/2004]

¶24

[2024:RJ-JD:14848]

¶25

revisionist-petitioner may be substituted with the period of sentences already undergone by him.

¶26

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. However, he was not in a position to dispute that the present revision petition is pending since 2004. Heard.

¶27

A perusal of the impugned judgments makes is manifest that the alleged incident happened in the year 1986 and the present revision petition is pending adjudication since 2004.

¶28

Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012)2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. (1998)9 SCC 678, pleased to observe as under:

¶29

Alister Anthony Pareira (supra)

¶30

“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.”

¶31

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 the light of aforesaid discussion, precedent law and keeping in view the limited prayer made on behalf of the revisionist-petitioner, the present revision is partly allowed.

[2024:RJ-JD:14848]

[CRLR-734/2004]

(4 of 4)

Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC, the sentences awarded to him are hereby reduced to the period already undergone by him. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.

¶38

All pending applications stand disposed of.

¶39

Record of the case be sent back to the learned court below forthwith.

¶40

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶41

23-himanshu/-

Keval Ram v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Keval Ram 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

Bhawani Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Girija Dhobi Vs State of Rajasthan

Seema Kanwar Vs State of Rajasthan

Vijay Mali Vs State of Rajasthan

Lokesh Jain Vs State of Rajasthan

Seema Vs State of Rajasthan