Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sunil Jain vs State Of Rajasthan on 27 July, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1009/2019
Sunil Jain S/o Shri Ghewar Chand, Aged About 41 Years, 11/819,
Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur.
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 802/2019
Sunil Jain S/o Ghewar Chand Jain, Aged About 41 Years, 11/819,
Choupasani Housing Board, Jodhpur
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Manoj Kumar Vyas S/o Dwarka
Das Vyas, 389,390 Shyam
Nagar, Pal Link Road, Jodhpur
Now Flat No.409, Indra Raj,
Bhagat Ki Kothi, Sector - 7,
New Power House Road,
Jodhpur
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sunil Jain, appellant in person.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rajpurohit PP
Mr. Gokulesh Bohra
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
Reserved on 21/07/2022
Pronounced on 27/07/2022
1. The above-numbered criminal appeal No.1009/2019 under
Section 372 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the complainant-
appellant against the judgment dated 13.05.2019 passed by the
(Downloaded on 29/07/2022 at 08:32:11 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLAS-1009/2019]
learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Jodhpur Metropolitan in
Criminal Appeal No.11/2018 (NCV No.36/2018) (Manoj Kumar
Vyas Vs. Sunil Jain), whereby the appeal filed by the respondent
No.2-Manoj Kumar Vyas against the judgment dated 04.01.2018
passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge & Metropolitan
Magistrate No.9, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Criminal Original Case
No.576/2017 (Sunil Jain Vs. Manoj Kumar Vyas), was partly
allowed; however, while affirming the conviction part of the
judgment passed by the learned trial court, the learned appellate
court vide the impugned judgment dated 13.05.2019, has
quashed and set aside the punishment of imprisonment awarded
to the respondent herein by the learned trial court.
1.1 The above-numbered criminal appeal No.802/2019 under
Section 372 Cr.P.C.has been preferred by the complainant-
appellant against the judgment dated 13.05.2019 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Jodhpur Metropolitan in
Criminal Appeal No.12/2018 (NCV No.35/2018) (Manoj Kumar
Vyas Vs. Sunil Jain), whereby the appeal filed by the respondent
No.2-Manoj Kumar Vyas against the judgment dated 04.01.2018
passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge & Metropolitan
Magistrate No.9, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Criminal Original Case
No.577/2017 (Sunil Jain Vs. Manoj Kumar Vyas), was partly
allowed; however, while affirming the conviction part of the
judgment passed by the learned trial court, the learned appellate
court vide the impugned judgment dated 13.05.2019, has
quashed and set aside the punishment of imprisonment awarded
to the respondent herein by the learned trial court.
2. The appellant appearing in person submitted that the final
amount including the fine amount has been paid to him. He also
(Downloaded on 29/07/2022 at 08:32:11 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLAS-1009/2019]
submitted that the interest granted by the learned court below has
also been paid.
3. The only prayer made by the appellant in person is that since
between the actual payment and compliance of the orders passed
by the learned court below, there was a difference of about 6-7
months, therefore, the interest for the same may also be ordered
to be paid. It is another thing that in the written pleadings, he has
also prayed for restoration of the sentence awarded by the initial
court to the respondent.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the
respondent No.2 opposed the appeals and submitted that in view
of the necessary payments being made by the respondent No.2 to
the appellant, no further interference is warranted.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as
perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that in the
attendant facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of
imprisonment has been rightly done away with by the learned
appellate court vide the impugned judgments dated 13.05.2019,
more particularly, when the necessary payments had been
admittedly given by the respondent No.2 to the appellant. Thus, in
the limited jurisdiction, this Court does not find any reason so as
to warrant its interference in the well reasoned impugned
judgments passed by the learned appellate court.
6. Consequently, the present appeals are dismissed. All pending
applications stand disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
SKant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
