Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Gopi Kishan vs Raman Kumar on 4 May, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 441/2002
Gopi Kishan
----Petitioner
Versus
Raman Kumar
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 442/2002
Gopi Kishan
----Petitioner
Versus
Raman Kumar
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 443/2002
Gopi Kishan
----Petitioner
Versus
Raman Kumar
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pravin Vyas
For Respondent(s) : None present
Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
04/05/2022
1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID - 19 cases and spread
of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being
maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety
of all concerned.
(Downloaded on 10/05/2022 at 08:05:39 PM)
(2 of 4) [CRLR-441/2002]
2. Despite service, no one has put in appearance on behalf of
the private-respondent.
3. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year
1998 and the present criminal revision has been pending since the
year 2002.
4. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with
Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment
dated 26.06.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge
No.3, Udaipur in Criminal Appeal No.22/2001 (154/2000),
20/2001 (152/2000) & 21/2001 (153/2000) respectively, whereby
the judgment dated 01.12.2000 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.1, Udaipur in Sessions Case No.198/2000,
196/2000 and 197/2000 respectively convicting the revisionist-
petitioner was upheld. The petitioner was convicted for the
offences under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, and his
sentence was reduced from one year R.I. to six month's R.I. in
each case and a fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default of payment of
which, he was ordered to undergo further three months S.I in
each case.
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 04.07.2002
passed in S.B. Criminal Bail Applications (SOS) No.74/2002,
75/2002 & 76/2002 respectively.
6. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner, however,
makes a limited submission that without making any interference
on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present
(Downloaded on 10/05/2022 at 08:05:39 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLR-441/2002]
revisionist-petitioner may be substituted with the period of
sentence already undergone by him.
7. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same.
8. This Court takes note of the fact that while suspending the
sentence of the petitioner on 04.07.2002, this Hon'ble Court has
already observed that the complete fine amount has been
deposited.
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..."
10. In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the
petitioner, and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent
laws, the present petitions are partly allowed. Accordingly, while
(Downloaded on 10/05/2022 at 08:05:39 PM)
(4 of 4) [CRLR-441/2002]
maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments 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.
56-58 Zeeshan
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
