Rajasthan High Court
Ramnath vs Prabhu Dayal And Ans on 23 August, 2024
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2024:RJ-JP:35490]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 288/2003
Ramnath son of Shri Isarram, age about 41 years, resident of
village Milakpura, Tehsil Ramgarh, District Alwar, Rajasthan (at
present Central Jail, Alwar)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Prabhu Dayal son of Shri Munnilal, resident of Village
Millakpura, Tehsil Ramgarh, District Alwar
2. State of Rajasthan Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, Addl. G A
Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Adv.
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
25.02.2003 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of
Attrocities) and Additional Sessions Judge, Alwar in Criminal
Appeal No.49/2002, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has
been dismissed and the judgment dated 03.09.2002 passed by
Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division) & Judicial Magistrate No.3,
Alwar in Criminal Case No.23/1131/1994, whereby the petitioner
has been convicted for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act &
sentenced to undergo one year's simple imprisonment with fine of
(Downloaded on 06/09/2024 at 10:09:46 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:35490] (2 of 4) [CRLR-288/2003]
Rs.5000/- and in default thereof to further undergo two months'
additional simple imprisonment, has been affirmed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
was convicted by the trial Court for the offence punishable under
Section 138 NI Act sentenced to undergo one year's simple
imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/- and in default thereof to
further undergo two months' additional simple imprisonment vide
judgment dated 03.09.2002. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submits that the petitioner had preferred the appeal but
the appellate Court vide judgment dated 25.02.2003 dismissed
the appeal filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner remained in custody for
more than 15 days' and petitioner had paid the principal amount
to the respondent. So, lenient view against the petitioner be taken
and sentence passed by the petitioner be reduced already
undergone.
Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the same.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel
for the respondent. 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 has already suffered the agony of protracted trial,
[2024:RJ-JP:35490] (3 of 4) [CRLR-288/2003]
spanning over a period of more than 30 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, (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.
5,000/- as levied by the trial Court vide judgment dated
03.09.2002 and affirmed by the Appellate Court vide judgment
dated 25.02.2003 with Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority,
Jaipur, 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
[2024:RJ-JP:35490] (4 of 4) [CRLR-288/2003]
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
Tahir/1
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
