HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 2526/2019
Rahul Meena S/o Shri Laxmi Narayan Meena, R/o House No. J-
33, Jawahar Nagar, Police Station Jawahar Nagar, Kota Raj. (At
Present In Central Jail Kota)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surendra Sharma
For Complainant(s) : Mr. Sudhir Jain
For State : Mr. Yashvant Kankhadiya, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Judgment / Order
17/08/2021
1. Petitioner has preferred this revision petition aggrieved by judgment of conviction and sentence dated 25.06.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.3, Kota (Raj), whereby petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 420 IPC and was sentenced for four years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.30,000/-, in default of payment of fine further three months additional rigorous imprisonment and against the judgment and order dated 14.10.2019 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge No.4, Kota (Raj.), whereby appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. Custody report was called by the Court. As per the custody report certificate, petitioner has already undergone substantial sentence and has deposited the fine and has been released from the prison. Custody certificate is taken on record. (Downloaded on 19/08/2021 at 09:57:15 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLR-2526/2019]
3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that a loan of Rs.30,00,000/- was taken by the petitioner on 22.02.2015 and the agreement was executed on 08.07.2015. Petitioner was not having any intention to cheat the complainant, otherwise there was no necessity of his entering into an agreement after five months of receipt money. It is also contended that petitioner is not having the requisite amount and therefore he could not return the amount. He had delieverd two cheques of Rs.15,00,000 each which were dishonoured and proceedings under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act were initiated by the complainant. It is further contended that the dishonoured cheques were seized at the time when the alleged amount was advanced.
4. Counsel for the complainant have opposed the revision petition. It is contended that there is concurrent finding of two Courts with regard to the commission of the offence. It is also contended that the agreement Ex.P-2 was executed on 08.07.2015. In the agreement, petitioner mentioned that he is purchasing agricultural land from khatedar Badri Narayan Sharma, whereas in fact PW-7 Badri Narayan Sharma has not deposed that he has entered into any agreement with the petitioner. It is further contended that petitioner initially stated wrong facts with intention to cheat the complainant. He has even submitted compromise before the High Court for obtaining bail and gave two cheques of Rs.15,00,000/- which were dishonoured.
5. I have considered the contentions and have perused the record.
6. From perusal of the record, it is evident that petitioner did not enter into any agreement with Badri Narayan Sharma and has stated wrong facts at the time of execution of agreement on (Downloaded on 19/08/2021 at 09:57:15 PM) (3 of 3) [CRLR-2526/2019] 08.07.2015. He did not refund the amount which points towards his intention of committing the offence. There is concurrent finding of two Courts and petitioner has also undergone the sentence, I am not inclined to entertain the revision petition.
7. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J ARTI SHARMA /32 (Downloaded on 19/08/2021 at 09:57:15 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)