RAKESH @ ROKETIYA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this criminal revision petition filed under Sec. 397/401, Crimial P.C., the petitioner is challenging judgment dated 22.2.1996 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Churu in Criminal Appeal No. 13/1994, whereby, the appellate Court affirmed conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner by the Munsif and Judl. Magistrate (First Class), Taranagar in Criminal Regular Case No. 96/1992 dated 5.4.1994 by which the petitioner was convicted for committing offence under Sections 457 and 380, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months for offence under Sec. 457, I.P.C. with fine of Rs. 50.00, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 10 days simple imprisonment and 1 year's simple imprisonment for offence under Sec. 380, I.P.C. with a fine of Rs. 50.00, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo, 10 days' simple imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) At the threshold, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case the proceedings was initiated in connection with incident which allegedly took place on 27.11.1991, in which, there is allegation of theft of TV/VCR against the petitioner. Without challenging the finding of both the Courts below, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at this stage it will not be appropriate to send the petitioner to custody for serving out the sentence after 20 years, therefore, the sentence awarded to the petitioner may be reduced from 1 year to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner inasmuch as petitioner has already suffered imprisonment for more than two months. In support of the submission, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon judgment of this Court, reported in 2002 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1655, Goda Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan , in which, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that incident is of the year 1982 and more than 19 years have passed and this period is sufficient to exhaust anybody mentally, physically and economically, therefore, ends of justice would meet if for offence under Sec. 4/9 of the Opium Act-the accused-petitioner is sentenced to the period already undergone by him.

(3.) While citing the above judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in this case after 20 years it will not be appropriate to send the petitioner in judicial custody, therefore, sentence awarded to the petitioner for committing the alleged offence under Sections 457 and 380, I.P.C. may be reduced from 1 year's-imprisonment to period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner.