Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kanhaiya Lal vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:24996) on 30 May, 2024
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2024:RJ-JD:24996]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 742/2024
Kanhaiya Lal S/o Rajuram, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Village
Kaliya, Tehsil And Dist. Sriganganagar
(Presently lodged at District Jail, Sriganganagar)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Satish Kumar S/o Inder Singh, R/o House No. 04, Vasant
Vihar, Dist. Sriganganagar
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
30/05/2024
1. An application (01/24) under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
for condoning the delay in filing the revision petition has been filed
by the petitioner.
2. For the reasons and grounds mentioned in the application,
the application is allowed.
3. Delay in filing revision petition is, hereby, condoned.
4. The defect No.2 pointed out by office has been cured by
counsel for the petitioner in the Court today.
5. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner
challenging the judgment dated 16.01.2024 in criminal appeal
No.270/2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, District
Sriganganagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') by
which the appellate court dismissed the appeal and upheld the
[2024:RJ-JD:24996] (2 of 4) [CRLR-742/2024]
judgment dated 31.08.2018 in criminal regular case No.139/2016
passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (NI Act) No.2,
Sriganganagar (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 one year's S.I. along with fine of Rs.5,60,000/- and in
default of payment of fine, to further undergo fifteen days' S.I.
6. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner
took a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant/respondent
No.2 and in lieu thereof, the petitioner had given a cheque bearing
No.139489 of Corporation Bank, Branch Sriganganagar 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.
7. 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 alongwith two other witnesses got examined and got
exhibited six 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.
8. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
judgment and order dated 31.08.2018 convicted the accused-
petitioner for offence under Section 138 of NI Act.
[2024:RJ-JD:24996] (3 of 4) [CRLR-742/2024]
9. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 31.08.2018,
passed by the learned trial court, an appeal was preferred before
the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide
judgment dated 16.01.2024. Hence, this revision.
10. 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 4 months and 21 days of
sentence, out of total sentence of one year's 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.
11. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
judgments passed by both the courts below regarding conviction
of the accused-petitioner.
12. It is not disputed that the accused petitioner was sentenced
to a period of one year's simple imprisonment, however, the
petitioner has so far undergone a period of about 4 months and 21
days in custody, out of one year 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 4 months and 21 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 one year's S.I. to the period
already undergone by the petitioner.
13. 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 fifteen
[2024:RJ-JD:24996] (4 of 4) [CRLR-742/2024]
days' 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
C-2-Rashi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
