Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Aaidan Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:24708) on 29 May, 2024
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2024:RJ-JD:24708]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 263/2024
Aaidan Ram S/o Mangi Lal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Nandra
Kalla Via Banar District Jodhpur (Raj) (At Present Lodged In
Central Jail Jodhpur) ----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Onkar Isingh S/o Jabbbar Singh, R/o Plot No 304 New
B.j.s Colony Jodhpur (Raj) ----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Kumar Mehta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP
Mr. Vikram Singh Rathore
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
29/05/2024
1. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner
challenging the judgment dated 08.02.2024 in criminal appeal
No.19/2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.4,
Jodhpur Metro (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') by
which the appellate court dismissed the appeal and upheld the
judgment dated 05.08.2023 in criminal regular case No.393/2019
passed by the learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act
Cases), No.8, Jodhpur Metro (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial
court') whereby, the learned trial court convicted the present
petitioner for offence under Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced
him to undergo six months' S.I. along with fine of Rs.10,00,000/-
and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three
months' S.I.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner
took a loan of Rs.9,25,000/- from the complainant/respondent
No.2 and in lieu thereof, the petitioner had given a cheque bearing
[2024:RJ-JD:24708] (2 of 3) [CRLR-263/2024]
No.475313 of State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur to the complainant.
On presentation, the said cheque was returned as dishonoured by
the Bank. The complainant served a legal notice upon the
petitioner through his advocate and demanded the amount of
cheque but the petitioner did not pay any amount to the
complainant.
On the basis of the above complaint, the learned trial court
took cognizance in the matter and ultimately framed charge for
offence under Section 138 NI Act against the petitioner. The
petitioner denied the charge and claimed for trial. During trial the
complainant got himself examined and got exhibited certain
documents. Thereafter, statement of the petitioner under Section
313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. In defence no evidence, oral or
documentary, was produced by the petitioner.
After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
judgment and order dated 05.08.2023 convicted the accused-
petitioner for offence under Section 138 of NI Act.
Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 05.08.2023,
passed by the learned trial court, an appeal was preferred before
the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide
judgment dated 08.02.2024. Hence, this revision.
At the threshold, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the
accused petitioner has served about five months and ten days of
sentence, out of total sentence of six months' S.I., 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.
[2024:RJ-JD:24708] (3 of 3) [CRLR-263/2024]
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
judgments passed by both the courts below regarding conviction
of the accused-petitioner.
It is not disputed that the accused petitioner was sentenced
to a period of six months' simple imprisonment, however, the
petitioner has so far undergone a period of about five months and
ten days in custody, out of six months' of total sentence, so also
suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to
the over-all circumstances and the fact that he has remained
behind the bars for about five months and ten days, it will be just
and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence
under Section 138 of NI Act is reduced from six months' S.I. to
the period already undergone by the petitioner.
Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. While
maintaining the petitioner's conviction for offence under Section
138 of NI Act, the sentence awarded to him is hereby reduced to
the period already undergone by him. The sentence of three
months' additional imprisonment awarded in default of payment of
fine/compensation is also waived. So far as the compensation
amount is concerned, the respondent No.2/complainant shall be
free to initiate proceedings for recovery of the compensation
amount before the trial court. The accused-petitioner is in custody
and shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
111-Rashi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
