Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Satyanarayan Keer vs Mahendra Harijan (2024:Rj-Jd:10268) on 28 February, 2024
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2024:RJ-JD:10268]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 250/2024
Satyanarayan Keer S/o Rop Lal Keer, Aged About 54 Years, R/o
Karni Mata Ka Kheda, Kumbhanagar, Chittorgarh, Tehsil And
Dist. Chittorgarh. (At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail Chittorgarh).
----Petitioner
Versus
Mahendra Harijan S/o Puran, R/o Pratapnagar Ambedkar Colony,
House No. 17, Near Station Girls School, Chittorgarh, Tehsil And
District Chittorgarh.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shailendra Gwala
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
28/02/2024
The petitioner has filed an application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the application
is allowed. The delay in filing the revision petition is hereby
condoned. The other defects pointed out by the office are also
overruled.
Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners
under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated
31.05.2022 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.1,
Chittorgarh (for short 'the appellate court') in Criminal Appeal No.
88/2019 whereby, the learned appellate Court dismissed the
appeal and affirmed the order passed by the learned Special
Judicial Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases), Chittorgarh whereby, the
[2024:RJ-JD:10268] (2 of 3) [CRLR-250/2024]
petitioner was convicted for offence under Section 138 N.I. Act
and sentenced to undergo two years simple imprisonment and fine
of Rs. 6,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo
six months S.I.
At the threshold, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the
petitioner is behind the bars and he has already served two years
one month and 27 days imprisonment out of the total two years
simple imprisonment and presently serving the sentence awarded
in default of payment of fine, therefore, it is prayed that the
substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner for the aforesaid
offence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
It is prayed that a lenient view may be taken in favour of
petitioner and substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner for
the aforesaid offence may be reduced to the period already
undergone by him.
I have perused the judgments passed by both the courts
below regarding conviction of the accused-petitioner. It is not in
dispute that the petitioner has so far undergone a period of two
years in custody out of total sentence of two years simple
imprisonment and presently serving sentence in default of
payment of fine, so also suffered the agony and trauma of
protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and
the fact that the petitioner has remained behind the bars for
substantial period now, it will be just and proper if the sentence
awarded by the trial court for offence under Section 138 N.I Act is
reduced to the period already undergone. So far as the amount of
fine imposed by the trial court is concerned, the respondent may
[2024:RJ-JD:10268] (3 of 3) [CRLR-250/2024]
move an appropriate application before the trial court for
recovering the amount of fine.
Accordingly, the revision petitions are partly allowed. While
maintaining the petitioners' conviction for offence under Section
138 N.I. Act, the sentence awarded to him in each case is hereby
reduced to the period already undergone, however, the fine
imposed by the trial court is not interfered with but the sentence
awarded in default of payment of fine is hereby set aside. The
petitioner may be released forthwith if not required in any other
case.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
249-BJSH/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
