Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Gopalram And Ors vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:33584) on 23 July, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:33584]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1133/2007
1. Gopal Ram S/o Amra Ram, R/o Ward No.11, Sri Vijaynagar,
District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.)
2. Shivlal S/o Amra Ram, R/o Bangadsar, P.S. Bajju, District
Bikaner (Raj.)
3. Fakira Ram S/o Tulcha Ram, R/o Bangadsar, P.S. Bajju,
District Bikaner (Raj.)
(Lodged at Central Jail, Sri Ganganagar)
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lalit Kishor Sen, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
23/07/2025
1. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted a report dated
21.07.2025, wherein it is mentioned that the petitioners are alive.
The same be taken on record.
2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with
Section 401 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioners
against the judgment dated 03.10.2007 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar
(hereinafter to be referred as ‘the appellate court’) in Criminal
Appeal No.24/2005, whereby the said appeal was dismissed and
judgment dated 03.05.2005 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Sri Vijaynagar, District Sri Ganganagar
(hereinafter to be referred as ‘the trial court’) in Criminal Case
No.323/2000 was upheld.
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 09:45:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33584] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1133/2007]
2.1. The accused petitioners were convicted and sentenced vide
judgment dated 03.05.2005 passed by the learned trial court as
below :-
Conviction for Sentence Fine
In default of
the offences Awarded Amount
payment of fine
under Sections further undergo
379/411 of IPC 1 Year's Rs.500/- 3 Months' Additional
Rigorous Rigorous
Imprisonment Imprisonment
25 of Telegraph 1 Year's Rs.500/- 3 Months' Additional
Act Rigorous Rigorous
Imprisonment Imprisonment
All the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that on
25.07.1999, a written report was lodged by one Ganesh Shankar
Gupta, the then J.T.O. of Suratgarh, alleging therein that on
24.07.1999 at 18:00 hours, his employee Satish Kumar Sharma
informed him that while patrolling Suratgarh-Anupgarh D.S.R.
Line, it was found that some unknown persons had cut and stolen
8 ACSR wires from two locations and two 8 ACSR wires from one
another location near Ghaggar Bridge and Jaitsar. The
approximate value of the stolen wires was Rs.4,500/-.
3.1. On the said report, the FIR No.272/1999 was registered at
Police Station Sri Vijaynagar, District Sri Ganganagar for the
offences under Sections 379 of IPC and Section 25 of Telegraph
Act and investigation was commenced.
3.2. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was field
against the petitioners. After filing of the charge-sheet and upon
completion of the trial, the petitioners were convicted by the
learned trial court for the offences under Sections 379/411 of IPC
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 09:45:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33584] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1133/2007]
and Section 25 of Telegraph Act vide judgment dated 03.05.2005
which was upheld by the learned appellate court vide judgment
dated 03.10.2007.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the
sentences so awarded to the petitioners were suspended by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.10.2007
passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentences Application
No.300/2007.
4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted
that the petitioners have undergone detention for some period and
the case is pending against them since 2007. It is also submitted
that the petitioners are facing agony of a long protracted trial and,
therefore, without making any interference on merits/conviction,
the sentences awarded to the present petitioners may be
substituted with the period of sentences already undergone by
them.
5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the
submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. However, he is not
in a position to dispute the fact that the present revision petition is
pending since 2007.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
7. A perusal of the impugned judgments makes is manifest that
the alleged incident happened in the year 1999 and the present
revision petition is pending adjudication since 2007.
7.1. Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the cases of Alister
Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra : (2012)2 SCC
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 09:45:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33584] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1133/2007]
648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. : (1998)9 SCC 678,
pleased to observe as under :
Alister Anthony Pareira (supra) :
“84. … … … 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) :
“4. … … … 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…”
7.2. In the light of aforesaid discussion, precedent law and
keeping in view the limited prayer made on behalf of the
petitioners, the present revision petition is partly allowed.
7.3. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the
petitioners for the offences under Sections 379/411 of IPC and
Section 25 of Telegraph Act, the sentences awarded to them are
hereby reduced to the period already undergone by them. The
petitioners are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds
stand discharged accordingly.
7.4. All pending applications are disposed of.
8. Record of the case be sent back to the learned court below
forthwith.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
Abhishek Kumar
S.No.8
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 09:45:23 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)