Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Laxmilal vs Rajendra Singh Ranawat ... on 16 August, 2023
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2023:RJ-JD:25736]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1205/2017
Laxmilal S/o Amritlal Suthar C/o Ganesh Lal Suthar, R/o Near
New Vishwakarma Sadan Main Chouraha, Kanpur, Tehsil- Girwa,
District- Udaipur Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
Rajendra Singh Ranawat S/o Lal Singh Ranawat, R/o 20 U.i.t.
Colony, Pratap Nagar, Udaipur Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravi Panwar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abishek Purohit, PP
Mr. JVS Deora
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
16/08/2023
1. The legality, correction and perversity of judgment of
conviction dated 05.05.2016 passed by Judicial Magistrate (NI Act,
Cases), No.2 Udaipur, in Criminal Regular Case NO. 1120/2013 as
well as judgment dated 05.09.2017 passed by Additional Sessions
Judge (Women Atrocities Act, Cases), Udaipur in Criminal Apeal
NO.35/2017 has been challenged by way of filing the instant
revision petition.
2. Bereft of elaborated details, subsequently stated the facts of
the case are that a complaint was submitted on behalf of the
respondent alleging interalia that a sum of Rs.40,000/- was
debted out by him to the petitioner and lieu thereof, the cheque
was handed over to the complainant. When the cheque was
presented before the concerned Bank, the same got dishonored
[2023:RJ-JD:25736] (2 of 3) [CRLR-1205/2017]
due to insufficiency of amount. Whereafter, notice was given and
when the payment was not made, the complainant filed criminal
complaint before the trial Court.
3. After fulfleged trial and making appreciation of the evidence,
the trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to suffer
three (3) months of simple imprisonment along with compensation
to the tune of Rs.80,000/-.
4. The appeal filed against the order has been dismissed and
both these judgments are under assail before this Court.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel
for the complainant and gone through the impugned judgments.
6. After carefully scanning of the fact brought on record, this
Court of the considered view that the learned trial Court Judge as
well as Court of appeal has not erred in reaching the conclusion of
guilt and therefore, the judgment of conviction does not warrant
interference by this Court at this stage.
7. While hearing on the point of sentence, it apprised to this
Court that the cheque was amounting of Rs.40,000 and Rs.80,000
has been given by the petitioner to the complainant. The said fact
has not rebutted by the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent. The petitioner is facing the trial since 2013 and now
10 years have lapsed. He submitted that the petitioner is not
having sufficient earning and has a family behind him, who are
dependent on him. Thus, looking to the social and economic
background of the petitioner, the object of NI Act and the fact that
10 years have lapsed and amount of compensation has been paid,
I deem it just proper that the sentence passed by the trial Court
[2023:RJ-JD:25736] (3 of 3) [CRLR-1205/2017]
and affirmed by the appellate Court deserves to be reduced to the
period already undergone accordingly.
8. The instant revision petition filed by the petitioner is
disposed of. The amount paid by the petitioner shall, if not
received, be disbursed in favour of the complainant. The order of
sentence and affirmation of the same by the appellate Court is set
aside and it is converted to the period already undergone. The
petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are
discharged.
(FARJAND ALI),J
115-Raksha/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
