Ishwarlal vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 14421 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1527/2022

Ishwarlal S/o Shri Ramcharan Ji Vaishnav, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Balaji Krishiseva Centra, Krashi Mandi Road, Pratapgarh, District Pratapgarh. (Presently Lodged At District Jail, Pratapgarh)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Suresh Kumar S/o Shri Gendmal Ji Vaidh, R/o Rajendra Nagar, Pratapgarh, District Pratapgarh.

                                                                      ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Vijay Kr. Gaur
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Gaurav Singh, PP



              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

                                     Order

08/12/2022

The instant revision petition has been preferred by the

accused-petitioner Ishwarlal for assailing the order dated

13.10.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Pratapgarh in Criminal Regular Case No.100/2012, which was

passed in compliance of the order dated 11.12.2020 passed by the

learned District & Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh in Criminal Appeal

No.85/2017 pursuant to which vide order dated 13.10.2020, the

petitioner was taken into custody.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner

was tried for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act. He was convicted vide judgment of conviction

and order of sentence dated 09.11.2017 passed by the learned

(2 of 4) [CRLR-1527/2022]

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh (hereinafter referred to as

'the trial Court') in Criminal Regular Case No.100/2012; he was

sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment alongwith a

fine of Rs.5,00,000/- and in default, to further undergo three

months' simple imprisonment. The said judgment of conviction

and order of sentence dated 09.11.2017 was challenged by the

petitioner before the learned District & Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh

(hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Court') by preferring an

appeal No.85/2017 under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. During the

course of appeal, the parties entered into a compromise and

according to the terms and conditions of the compromise arrived

at between them, the petitioner paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the

complainant on 11.12.2020 and the remaining amount of

Rs.1,50,000/- was agreed to be paid by him to the complainant in

a total of three installments; out of which, two installments of

Rs.30,000/- each were to be paid by him till 20.01.2021 and

20.02.2021 respectively and he was supposed to pay the

remaining amount of the compromise i.e. Rs.90,000/- to the

complainant till 20.03.2021. In view of the said compromise

arrived at between the parties, the learned Appellate Court, vide

order dated 11.12.2020, decided the appeal and set aside the

judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.11.2017

passed by the learned trial Court. The learned Appellate Court

ordered that if the accused-petitioner failed to comply with the

order dated 11.12.2020, i.e. in making payment of the agreed

amount to the complainant within the stipulated period, in that

situation, the judgment dated 09.11.2017 passed by the learned

trial Court would be revived.

(3 of 4) [CRLR-1527/2022]

Indisputably, the accused-petitioner failed to comply with the

order dated 11.12.2020 passed by the learned Appellate Court as

agreed by him on the terms and conditions of the compromise,

therefore, the proceedings against him came to be rejuvenated

and a warrant of arrest was issued against him. It was observed

by the learned trial Court that the petitioner was lodged at the

Central Jail, Pratapgarh in another case, therefore, vide order

dated 03.09.2022, a production warrant was issued against him

and he was produced before the Court below on 13.10.2022 and

on that day, adverting to the fact that he failed to comply with the

directions passed in the appeal, he was ordered to be sent back to

the prison for serving the remainder of sentence passed by the

learned trial Court vide order dated 09.11.2017.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

is an indigent person, having no sufficient means to pay the

amount of compromise at once as agreed by him and as directed

by the learned Appellate Court. Learned counsel further argued

that owing to the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, the petitioner

failed to earn sufficient means. He was taken into custody in

another case and thus, he could not comply with the order passed

by the learned Appellate Court but now, he is ready and willing to

comply with the order if he would be released on bail.

Heard and considered the submissions advanced at Bar by

learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor for

the State. Perused the orders impugned and other material

available on record.

In the peculiar circumstances, this Court deems it just and

proper to release the petitioner on bail so that after release, he

would be able to make arrangements and accumulate money for

(4 of 4) [CRLR-1527/2022]

payment of due amount for the purpose of paying the same to the

complainant.

Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. The order dated

13.10.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Pratapgarh in Criminal Regular Case No.100/2012 is quashed and

set aside. He shall be released on bail, provided he executes a

personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- along with two sureties

of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge.

He shall further furnish an undertaking before the Court below

that he shall pay the entire due amount i.e. Rs.1,50,000/- to the

complainant within six months from the date of his release. Upon

furnishing bail bonds and sureties along with the undertaking, he

shall be released on bail. It is made clear that if the amount is not

paid by the petitioner as agreed before this Court, the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence shall be rejuvenated and then

the petitioner would again be taken in custody to suffer the

remainder part of sentence.

With the above observations, the revision petition is allowed.

The application for suspension of sentence also stands

disposed of.

(FARJAND ALI),J 179-Mamta/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)