Devkaran vs State (2024:Rj-Jd:24694)

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Devkaran vs State (2024:Rj-Jd:24694) on 29 May, 2024

Author: Manoj Kumar Garg

Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg

[2024:RJ-JD:24694]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
             S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 509/2005

Devkaran S/o Balu Ram, Caste Jat, R/o Lamba, Khari Ka Thana,
Gulabpura, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State of Rajasthan
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Nagraj Goswami
For Respondent(s)         :     Ms. Anita Gehlot, PP



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Judgment / Order 29/05/2024 Instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 15.03.2005 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Tractk) No.1 Bhilwara, in Criminal Appeal No.43/2004 by which the appellate court dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the judgment dated 29.09.2004 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate West, Bhilwara in Criminal Case No.124/2003, whereby, the learned trial Court convicted the petitioner for offence under Section 420 IPC and sentenced him to undergo six months' simple imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months' S.I. Brief facts of the case are that on 17.08.1994 complainant Satish Baheti gave an information to the Police Station Banera Peela, District Bhilwara to the effect that he gave some household items to one Devkaran and in return Devkaran gave a cheque to the (Downloaded on 30/05/2024 at 09:04:09 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:24694] (2 of 3) [CRLR-509/2005] complainant for a sum of Rs.3,000/- and when the complainant presented the said cheque before the bank, the same was returned with the endorsement that the bank account of Devkaran has been closed. Upon this, a case was registered against the petitioner and Police started investigation.

On completion of investigation, the police filed challan against the accused-petitioner. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charge against the accused-petitioner for offence under Section 420 of IPC, who denied the charges and claimed trial.

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined four witnesses and also exhibited some documents. Thereafter, statement of the accused-petitioner was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.

Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 29.09.2004 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner for offence under Section 420 of IPC.

Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 15.03.2005. Hence, this revision petition.

At the threshold, counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the finding of conviction but it is submitted that the occurrence relates back to the year 1994 and the petitioner has so far suffered a sentence of about fifteen days, out of total sentence of six months' S.I. In such circumstances, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 420 IPC may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner. (Downloaded on 30/05/2024 at 09:04:09 PM)

[2024:RJ-JD:24694] (3 of 3) [CRLR-509/2005] The learned PP submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused petitioner nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case.

I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment passed by the courts below regarding conviction of the accused-petitioner.

It is not disputed that the occurrence has taken place in the year 1994 and the accused-petitioner has so far undergone a period of about fifteen days' incarceration, out of total sentence of six months' S.I., and so also suffered the mental agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the accused-petitioner has remained behind the bars for some time, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Section 420 IPC and affirmed by the appellate court is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the petitioner's conviction for offence under Section 420 of IPC, the sentence awarded to him for aforesaid offence is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The fine imposed by the courts below has already been deposited by the petitioner. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged.

Application for suspension of sentence is already decided. The record of the courts below, be sent back forthwith.

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 18-Ishan/-

(Downloaded on 30/05/2024 at 09:04:09 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)