Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vickey vs State Of Rajasthan on 8 December, 2022
Bench: Farjand Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR.
....
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1488/2022.
Vickey S/o Fateh Chand, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Ward No. 6,
Colony Road Sangaria, Tehsil Sangaria, District Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Mahaveer Prasad S/o Het Ram, R/o Thirajwala Tehsil
Pilibanga Dist. Hanumangarh
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Sharma.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Laxman Solanki, PP.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
08/12/2022
By way of filing the instant revision petition, challenge has
been made to the order dated 21.05.2022 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Hanumangarh in Criminal Appeal
No. 48/2022 whereby the Appellate Court though allowed the
application of the petitioner filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for
suspension of sentences passed by the learned Trial Court vide
judgment dated 25.04.2022 in Criminal Regular Case No.
175/2022 (CIS No. 1270/2014) however, inflicted a condition of
deposition of 20% of the fine amount. The grievance is raised
regarding imposition of the condition of deposition of
Rs.2,40,000/- (i.e., 20% of the fine amount).
(2 of 3) [CRLR-1488/2022]
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has a strong arguable case in his favour and has every success in
the appeal since the complainant has failed to discharge the
burden by placing cogent evidence that the amount was paid to
him and the cheque was issued by the petitioner in discharge of
his legal debt or liability. Learned counsel further submits that
imposing a harsh condition of depositing 20% of the fine amount
would be very onerous at the best, the learned Appellate Court
may have imposed a condition to deposit 20% of the cheque
amount. The petitioner is facing the trial since the year 2010 and
is a very poor person, therefore, he is not in a position to deposit
Rs. 2,40,000/- as directed by the Appellate Court and if he fails to
deposit, he would have to go behind the bars and thus, the very
purpose of filing of appeal would be frustrated.
Though the complainant is a party-respondent in this case
but if the matter is taken and notices are issued then, surely the
course of appeal would be protracted, therefore, in the interest of
justice, learned Public Prosecutor is directed to safeguard the
interest of the complainant and in fact, the learned Public
Prosecutor has aptly assisted the Court by representing the cause
of the complainant.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, looking
to the long pendency and the poor condition of the petitioner, it is
deemed appropriate to modify the order impugned dated
21.05.2022 of the learned Appellate Court.
Accordingly, the instant revision petition succeeds. The order
impugned dated 21.05.2022 passed by the learned Appellate
(3 of 3) [CRLR-1488/2022]
Court is modified to the extent that instead of depositing 20% of
the fine amount, the petitioner would deposit 20% of the cheque
amount (i.e., Rs. 1,20,000/-) within a period of 15 days from
today. Rest of the conditions of the order shall remain as it is.
The instant revision petition is allowed in above terms. Stay
application stands disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
177-Mohan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
