Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Babu Lal Chaudhary vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:20170) on 25 April, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:20170]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1262/2024
Babu Lal Chaudhary S/o Ganesh Lal Chaudhary, Aged About 58
Years, R/o Plot No.30, Ground Floor, Bajaj Bhawan, Bhopalpura,
Tehsil And District Udaipur (At Present Lodged At Central Jail
Udaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Jitendra Kalra S/o Shivlal Kalra, R/o Vijeta Diji Studio,
Shop No.4, Bhopalpura Mainroad, Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Mewara
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sonu Manawat, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment 25/04/2025
1. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 04.07.2024 in criminal appeal No.162/2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') by which the appellate court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment dated 25.01.2024 in Criminal Regular Case No.14822/2015 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, (NI Act Cases) No.II, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') whereby, the learned trial court convicted the present petitioner for offence under Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced him to undergo one year S.I. along with fine of Rs.18,00,000/-, in default of fine to undergo one month's S.I.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner borrowed Rs.9,00,000/- from the complainant/respondent No.2 (Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 11:58:37 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:20170] (2 of 3) [CRLR-1262/2024] and assured him to return the same. The petitioner had given a cheque bearing No.372569 amounting to Rs.9,00,000/- to the complainant on 01.05.2013. On presentation, the said cheque was returned as dishonoured by the Bank as 'exceeds arrangement' on 16.05.2013. The complainant served a legal notice upon the petitioner through his advocate and demanded the amount of cheque but the petitioner did not pay any amount to the complainant.
3. On the basis of the above complaint, the learned trial court took cognizance in the matter and ultimately framed charge for offence under Section 138 NI Act against the petitioner. The petitioner denied the charge and claimed for trial. During trial the complainant got examined and exhibited various documents. Thereafter, statement of the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded.
4. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide judgment and order dated 25.01.2024 convicted the accused- petitioner for offence under Section 138 of NI Act.
5. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 25.01.2024, passed by the learned trial court, an appeal was preferred before the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 04.07.2024. Hence, this revision petition.
6. At the threshold, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the accused petitioner has served about 22 days of sentence, out of total sentence of one year S.I., therefore, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to the petitioner for the aforesaid offence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. (Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 11:58:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:20170] (3 of 3) [CRLR-1262/2024]
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the judgments passed by both the courts below regarding conviction of the accused-petitioner.
8. It is not disputed that the accused petitioner was sentenced to a period of one year simple imprisonment, however, the petitioner has so far undergone a period of about 22 days in custody, out of one year of total sentence, so also suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that he has remained behind the bars for about 22 days, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Section 138 of NI Act is reduced from one year S.I. to the period already undergone by the petitioner.
9. Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the petitioner's conviction for offence under Section 138 of NI Act, the sentence awarded to him is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by him. So far as the compensation amount is concerned, the respondent/complainant shall be free to initiate proceedings for recovery of the compensation amount before the trial court.
10. The accused-petitioner is in custody and shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
11. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
12. Record of the Courts below be sent back.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 49-Rashi/-
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 11:58:37 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)