Rahul Meena S/O Shri Laxmi Narayan ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 3816 Raj/2

       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.

(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

(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

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)