Rajasthan High Court
Ramakant vs State on 23 August, 2024
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2024:RJ-JP:35496]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1381/2006
Ramakant Gautam S/o Sh. Suraj Ma, proprietor firm M/s Gautam
Cementi hardware and electric Talwandi Circle Kota (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through PP
2. Vaibhav Gupta S/o S.R. Gupta Proprietor firm M/s Dwarka
electricals Manak Bhawan New Colony Gumanpur Kota (Raj.)
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surendra Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, Addl. G.A.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
DATE OF JUDGMENT 23/08/2024
Instant revision petition has been filed on behalf of
accused/petitioner under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved by judgment
dated 21.11.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.2 Kota
in Criminal Appeal No.29/2006, whereby the appeal filed by the
petitioner has been dismissed and the judgment dated 28.10.2005
passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.5, Kota in
Criminal Case No.1231/2002, whereby the petitioner has been
convicted for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act & sentenced
to undergo three months' simple imprisonment with fine of
Rs.12,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo 15 days'
simple imprisonment, has been affirmed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner
was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable
[2024:RJ-JP:35496] (2 of 3) [CRLR-1381/2006]
Instruments Act by the trial Court & sentenced to undergo three
months' simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.12,000/- out of
Rs.11,000 was awarded to the complainant. Learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that petitioner had preferred an appeal but
Appellate Court vide order dated 21.11.2006 dismissed the appeal
filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner had remained in custody for one month and he
had paid Rs.11,000/- to the complainant. So, in the interest of
justice, sentence passed by the petitioner be reduced already
undergone.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
impugned judgments and the entire record of the case.
Since the present revision petition against conviction is not
pressed and after perusing the material, nothing is noticed which
requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by the trial
Court and affirmed by the appellate Court. This Court does not
wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the
judgment of conviction is maintained.
So far as the question of quantum of sentence is concerned,
the petitioner was aged around 24 years at the time of incident
and presently petitioner is age around 46 years old. The petitioner
has already suffered the agony of protracted trial, spanning over a
period of more than 22 years and he remained incarcerated for
some time after passing of the judgment, hence, the case of the
petitioner deserves to be dealt with leniency. Thus, guided by the
judicial pronouncements made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
cases of Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra,
(2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of West Bengal,
[2024:RJ-JP:35496] (3 of 3) [CRLR-1381/2006]
(1998) 9 SCC 678 and considering the facts & circumstances of
the case, the age of the petitioner, the fact that he faced financial
hardship and he had to go through mental agony, this Court is of
the view that the ends of justice would be met, if sentence
imposed upon the petitioner is reduced to the period already
undergone by him.
Looking to the facts & circumstances of the present case &
considering the submissions made at bar, more particularly the
long pendency of the case & the old date of alleged incident as
well as keeping in mind the precedent laws (supra), the revision
petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the
petitioner for the alleged offences, the substantive sentence of
imprisonment awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period
already undergone by him.
However, the petitioner shall deposit the fine amount of Rs.
1,000/- as levied by the trial Court vide judgment dated
28.10.2005 and affirmed by the Appellate Court vide judgment
dated 21.11.2006 with concerned Government Treasury, if not
already deposited within two months from today, failing which the
said amount shall be recovered in terms of Section 461 BNSS by
concerned District Collector as a land revenue. The petitioner is on
bail. He need not to surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled.
Record be sent to the trial Court.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
AVINASH GULERIA /730
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
