Raju Lal Gavri vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:36187)
2024 Latest Caselaw 7553 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Raju Lal Gavri vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:36187) on 2 September, 2024

[2024:RJ-JD:36187]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                         JODHPUR
                S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5821/2024

Raju Lal Gavri S/o Heela Lal Gavri, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Old
Loco Railway Gate Colony, Near Arya Gurukul, Tehsil And Dist.
Chittorgarh,raj.
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.        State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.        Panna Lal Loth S/o Sita Ram Loth, R/o Ambedkar Colony,
          Pratap Nagar, Tehsil And Dist. Chittorgarh,raj.
                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Gulam Moinuddin
For Respondent(s)          :     Ms. Sonu Manawat, PP



               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Order

02/09/2024

1. Petitioner herein is aggrieved of an order dated 10.07.2024,

passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh in Criminal

Appeal No.91/2024, who whereby suspended the sentence and

imposed a condition to deposit 20% of fine in pursuant of the

judgment dated 12.06.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate

(N.I. Act cases), Chittorgarh in Criminal Original Case

No.1253/2019, who whereby convicted the petitioner for the

offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced him for 1

year simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,40,000/-.

2. The impugned order is primarily premised on the reasoning

that as per Section 148 Negotiable Instruments Act, suspension of

sentence can only be if a minimum of at least 20% of the fine

amount is paid to the complainant.

[2024:RJ-JD:36187] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-5821/2024]

3. A perusal thereof reveals that the learned Sessions court fell

in grave error in directing interim payment of the 20% of fine

amount under the impression that the provision contained under

Section 148 of N.I. Act is absolute in nature and without

compliance thereof, the application of the petitioner seeking

suspension of his sentence could not have been allowed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

is a very poor person and his entire family is living in penury.

Being in financial dire straights, he is not in a position to deposit

such a huge amount of fine i.e. 20% (Rs.2,08,000/- as

compensation) of the total amount of Rs.10,40,000/-.

5. In the premise, he shall have to necessarily surrender for

being taken into custody. Therefore, he would not even be able to

defend his appeal during the pendency thereof. He further submits

that the liberty of the petitioner is at stake.

6. While, on the other hand, he is sanguine that he has a good

case in appeal. He will succeed in the same, but due to his

inability to pay, he is not able to defend himself in the further

proceedings until he complies with the order impugned herein.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am in

agreement with the arguments canvassed by him.

8. In the premise, after perusing the impugned order and the

case file, I am of the view that looking at the financial condition of

the petitioner, directing him to deposit 20% of the amount as per

impugned order shall result in jeopardizing his appeal being

dismissed on account of non-compliance of the condition of

deposit. He seems to be in financial distress and has to be granted

[2024:RJ-JD:36187] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-5821/2024]

indulgence in the larger interest of justice to enable him to defend

himself in the pending appeal.

9. As an upshot, in the light of the facts and circumstances of

the case the impugned order is modified to the extent that the

petitioner shall deposit 10% of the fine amount i.e. Rs.1,04,000/-

and proceed with the appeal in accordance with law.

10. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.

(ARUN MONGA),J 77-DhananjayS/-

                                   Whether Fit for Reporting:     Yes      /      No









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)