Shrikishan Soni vs State
2021 Latest Caselaw 5364 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 302/2020

Shrikishan Soni S/o Late Shri Sohanlal, Aged About 37 Years, By Caste Soni, R/o Behind Naya Shahar Thana, Naya Shahar, Bikaner. (At Present Central Jail Bikaner).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State, Through P.p.

2. Manoharlal Vyas S/o Kanhaiyalal, By Caste Vyas Brahman, R/o Outside Of Dharmnagar Dawar, Behind Ojha Saraswat Bhawan, Near Chune Bhatta, Bikaner (Raj.).

                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Roshan Lal
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Sumer Singh Rajpurohit, P.P
                               Ms. Anukriti for Mr. S.S. Ladrecha



         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

                                    Order

24/02/2021

Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners

under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated

07.02.2020 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.3, Bikaner

(for short 'the appellate court') in Criminal Appeal No. 54/2019

whereby, the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal and

affirmed the order passed by the learned Special Judicial

Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No.1, Bikaner whereby, the petitioner

was convicted for offence under Section 138 N.I. Act and

sentenced to undergo two years simple imprisonment and fine of

Rs. 9,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo

four months S.I.

(2 of 3) [CRLR-302/2020]

At the threshold, learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the

petitioner is behind the bars since 01.11.2019 and he has already

served one year and two months imprisonment out of the total

two years simple imprisonment, 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.

It is prayed that a lenient view may be taken in favour of

petitioner and substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner for

the aforesaid offence may be reduced to the period already

undergone by him.

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor and counsel

for the respondent vehemently opposed the submissions made by

the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel

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 judgments passed by both the courts

below regarding conviction of the accused-petitioner. It is not

dispute that the petitioner has so far undergone a period of one

year and two months in custody out of total sentence of two years

simple imprisonment, so also suffered the agony and trauma of

protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and

the fact that the petitioner has remained behind the bars for

substantial period now, it will be just and proper if the sentence

awarded by the trial court for offence under Section 138 N.I Act is

reduced to the period already undergone. So far as the amount of

fine imposed by the trial court is concerned, the respondent may

(3 of 3) [CRLR-302/2020]

moved an appropriate application before the trial court for

recovering the amount of fine.

Accordingly, the revision petitions are partly allowed. While

maintaining the petitioners' conviction for offence under Section

138 N.I. Act, the sentence awarded to him in each case is hereby

reduced to the period already undergone, however, the fine

imposed by the trial court is not interfered with but the sentence

awarded in default of payment of fine is hereby set aside. The

petitioner may be released forthwith if not required in any other

case.

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

61-BJSH/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)