Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Roshanlal vs Parasram (2025:Rj-Jd:1474) on 9 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:1474]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1287/2024
Roshanlal S/o Mohanlal, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Opp. Bsnl
Office, Devgarh, Dist. Rajsamand, Raj. (Lodged In Dist.
Rajsamand) ----Petitioner
Versus
Parasram S/o Unkar, R/o Kothariya, Teh. Nathdwara, Dist.
Rajsamand, Raj. ----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anuj Sahlot
Mr. Digvijay Singh Chouhan
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment 09/01/2025
1. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 06.04.2024 in criminal appeal No.08/2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nathdwara (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') by which the appellate court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment dated 23.02.2017 in criminal case No.409/2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nathdwara (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 six months' S.I. along with fine of Rs.80,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months' S.I.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner borrowed some money from the complainant/respondent and assured him to return the same. The petitioner had given two cheques amounting to Rs.12,000/- bearing No.720471 and (Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 09:46:35 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:1474] (2 of 3) [CRLR-1287/2024] Rs.36,000/- bearing No.720470 of Punjab National Bank, Rajsamand to the complainant. On presentation, the said cheques were returned as dishonoured by the Bank. 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 nine documents. Thereafter, statement of the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. In defence no evidence, oral or documentary, was produced by the petitioner.
4. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide judgment and order dated 23.02.2017 convicted the accused- petitioner for offence under Section 138 of NI Act.
5. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 23.02.2017, passed by the learned trial court, an appeal was preferred before the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 06.04.2024. Hence, this revision.
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 5 months and 20 days of sentence, out of total sentence of six months' S.I., therefore, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner for the aforesaid offence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
(Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 09:46:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:1474] (3 of 3) [CRLR-1287/2024]
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 six months' simple imprisonment, however, the petitioner has so far undergone a period of about 5 months and 20 days in custody, out of six months 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 5 months and 20 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 six months' 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 16-Rashi/-
(Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 09:46:35 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)