Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Gaja Nand vs State And Anr on 20 July, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 869/1999
Gaja Nand
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Anr
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Khadav (Amicus Curiae)
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Singh, PP
Mr. Vijay Kumar Agarwal
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
20/07/2022
1. None appears for the appellant despite specific note in the
cause-list that old matters prior to 2000 shall not be adjourned.
2. Mr. Suresh Khadav, Advocate is appointed as Amicus Curiae
to argue the matter on behalf of the accused-appellant under the
free legal aid scheme. His remuneration shall be paid by the
Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority as per the rules.
3. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year
1995 and the present criminal revision has been pending since the
year 1999.
4. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with
Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment
dated 07.12.1999 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge
No.1, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Appeal No.74/99, whereby the
judgment dated 27.05.1999 passed by the learned Additional
(Downloaded on 21/07/2022 at 08:54:32 PM)
(2 of 4) [CRLR-869/1999]
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Case
No.295/98, convicting the revisionist-petitioner was upheld. The
petitioner was convicted for the offences under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instrument Act and was sentenced to undergo three
months' S.I. and a fine of Rs.30,000/-, in default of payment of
which, he was ordered to undergo further fifteen days' S.I.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner further submits
that the sentence so awarded to the revisionist-petitioner was
suspended by this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 27.01.2000
passed in S.B. Criminal Bail Application (SOS) No.226/1999.
6. On seeing the order dated 27.01.2000, it reflects that the
demand draft of 30,000/- has already been released in favour of
the complainant through the learned Court below. The order dated
27.01.2000 passed by this Court reads as follows:-
"Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
he is depositing a draft of Rs.30,000/- in the name of
complainant Deepak Gupta in the Court.
This draft may be transmitted to the trial court to
be handed over to the complainant on furnishing
security for the amount in question and undertaking to
the effect that in case the accused succeeds in this
case, he will return the amount with interest at the rate
of 18% per annum.
Heard. Perused the impugned judgment and
record.
Admit.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of
this case, I feel that it will be just and proper to
suspend the sentence of the appellant(s). Accordingly,
the bail application is allowed and it is ordered that the
sentence passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge
No.1, Sri Ganganagar by his order of the judgment
dated 07.12.1999 against the appellant(s) Gaja Nand
S/o Manoharlal shall remain suspended till the final
disposal of aforesaid criminal appeal provided he
executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/-
alongwith two sureties in the like amount to the
(Downloaded on 21/07/2022 at 08:54:32 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLR-869/1999]
satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his
appearance in this Court on 22.03.2000 and
whenever ordered to do so with the incorporation in
the bond that as and when he will shift his place of
residence, he will intimate to this Court and his lawyer
about his new place of residence."
7. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner, thus, makes a
limited submission that without making any interference on
merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present
revisionist-petitioner may be substituted with the period of
sentence already undergone by him.
8. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.
9. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in,
Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2
SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. (1998) 9 SCC
678 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-
Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra)
"There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused
on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain
principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is
deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the
ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of
each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of
the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all
other attendant circumstances."
Haripada Das (Supra)
"...considering the fact that the respondent had already
undergone detention for some period and the case is
pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered
both financial hardship and mental agony and also
considering the fact that he had been released on bail as far
back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice will
be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to
the period already undergone..."
(Downloaded on 21/07/2022 at 08:54:32 PM)
(4 of 4) [CRLR-869/1999]
10. In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the
petitioner, and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent
laws, the present petition is partly allowed. Accordingly, while
maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, the sentence awarded
to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The
petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand
discharged accordingly.
11. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the
learned below be sent back forthwith.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
31-Sudheer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
