Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Devkaran vs State (2024:Rj-Jd:24694) on 29 May, 2024
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2024:RJ-JD:24694]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 509/2005
Devkaran S/o Balu Ram, Caste Jat, R/o Lamba, Khari Ka Thana,
Gulabpura, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nagraj Goswami
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anita Gehlot, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment / Order
29/05/2024
Instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has
been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated
15.03.2005 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Tractk)
No.1 Bhilwara, in Criminal Appeal No.43/2004 by which the appellate
court dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the judgment
dated 29.09.2004 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate West,
Bhilwara in Criminal Case No.124/2003, whereby, the learned trial
Court convicted the petitioner for offence under Section 420 IPC
and sentenced him to undergo six months' simple imprisonment
alongwith a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to
further undergo three months' S.I.
Brief facts of the case are that on 17.08.1994 complainant
Satish Baheti gave an information to the Police Station Banera Peela,
District Bhilwara to the effect that he gave some household items to
one Devkaran and in return Devkaran gave a cheque to the
[2024:RJ-JD:24694] (2 of 3) [CRLR-509/2005]
complainant for a sum of Rs.3,000/- and when the complainant
presented the said cheque before the bank, the same was returned
with the endorsement that the bank account of Devkaran has been
closed. Upon this, a case was registered against the petitioner and
Police started investigation.
On completion of investigation, the police filed challan against
the accused-petitioner. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charge
against the accused-petitioner for offence under Section 420 of IPC,
who denied the charges and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined four
witnesses and also exhibited some documents. Thereafter, statement
of the accused-petitioner was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 29.09.2004 convicted and sentenced the
accused-petitioner for offence under Section 420 of IPC.
Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the petitioner
preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which came
to be dismissed vide judgment dated 15.03.2005. Hence, this
revision petition.
At the threshold, counsel for the petitioner does not challenge
the finding of conviction but it is submitted that the occurrence
relates back to the year 1994 and the petitioner has so far suffered a
sentence of about fifteen days, out of total sentence of six months'
S.I. In such circumstances, it is prayed that the substantive sentence
awarded to the accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 420
IPC may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner.
[2024:RJ-JD:24694] (3 of 3) [CRLR-509/2005]
The learned PP submitted that there is neither any occasion to
interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused petitioner nor
any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case.
I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as
defence and the judgment passed by the courts below regarding
conviction of the accused-petitioner.
It is not disputed that the occurrence has taken place in the
year 1994 and the accused-petitioner has so far undergone a period
of about fifteen days' incarceration, out of total sentence of six
months' S.I., and so also suffered the mental agony and trauma of
protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the
fact that the accused-petitioner has remained behind the bars for
some time, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the
trial court for offence under Section 420 IPC and affirmed by the
appellate court is reduced to the period already undergone by him.
Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is partly allowed.
While maintaining the petitioner's conviction for offence under
Section 420 of IPC, the sentence awarded to him for aforesaid
offence is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The fine
imposed by the courts below has already been deposited by the
petitioner. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail
bonds stand discharged.
Application for suspension of sentence is already decided.
The record of the courts below, be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
18-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
