Saturday, 16, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Sarjeevan Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:53965)
2025 Latest Caselaw 16543 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 16543 Raj
Judgement Date : 10 December, 2025

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Sarjeevan Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:53965) on 10 December, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:53965]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
             S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 986/2025

Sarjeevan Ram S/o Ratan Chand, Aged About 63 Years, R/o
Ward No. 1, Devnagar, Purani Abadai ,sriganganagar Second
Address Head Post Office, Sriganganagar (Lodged In Central Jail,
Sriganganagar)
                                                                        ----Petitioner
                                        Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.       Uco     Bank,     Branch       Sri    Ganganagar            Through   Branch
         Manager Uco Bank Sriganganagar
                                                                     ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)             :     Mr. R.S. Mankad
For Respondent(s)             :     Ms. Sonu Manawat, P.P.



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order

10/12/2025

1. The matter comes up on an application (IA No. 01/2025)

under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay

in filing the instant revision petition.

2. For the reasons stated therein, the application is allowed.

The delay in filing the revision petition is hereby condoned.

3. On the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the

matter is taken up for hearing today itself.

4. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner

assailing the judgment dated 04.05.2022 passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter

referred to as "learned appellate court"), whereby appeal

preferred by the petitioner was dismissed and the judgment dated

(Uploaded on 16/12/2025 at 12:08:35 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53965] (2 of 4) [CRLR-986/2025]

26.05.2017 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I.

Act Cases) No. 1, Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter referred to as

"learned trial court") was affirmed. By the said judgment, learned

trial court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to

undergo one year's simple imprisonment along with a fine of

₹34,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo

three months' additional simple imprisonment.

5. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner

had taken a personal loan from the respondent/complainant -

Bank and towards repayment thereof, issued a cheque bearing

No.565971 drawn on Uco Bank, Branch Sri Ganganagar, for an

amount of ₹21,500/-. Upon presentation, said cheque was

dishonoured by the bank with the endorsement "Insufficient

Funds." Thereafter, complainant served a legal notice upon the

petitioner through its advocate demanding payment of the cheque

amount; however, the petitioner failed to make the payment.

6. On the basis of the complaint so filed, learned trial court took

cognizance of the offence and subsequently, framed charge

against the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the NI

Act. The petitioner denied said charge and claimed trial. During

the course of trial, complainant examined himself as a witness and

produced documentary evidence. Thereafter, statement of the

petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded.

7. Upon completion of the trial, learned trial court vide

judgment and order dated 26.05.2017, convicted accused-

petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act.

(Uploaded on 16/12/2025 at 12:08:35 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53965] (3 of 4) [CRLR-986/2025]

Aggrieved by judgment and order of sentence dated 26.05.2017

passed by the learned trial court, the petitioner preferred an

appeal before the learned appellate court, which came to be

dismissed vide judgment dated 04.05.2022. Hence, present

revision petition.

8. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

finding of conviction is not being challenged. However, it is

contended that since accused-petitioner has already undergone

seven months of the sentence out of the total sentence of one

year as on 25.11.2025, it is prayed that sentence awarded to the

petitioner may be reduced to the period already undergone.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the

judgment passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case

of Shrikishan Soni vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B.

Criminal Revision Petition No. 216/2021) decided on

02.12.2021.

10. In pursuance of the order dated 07.11.2025, learned Public

Prosecutor has produced the custody certificate, according to

which, the petitioner has undergone seven months of the sentence

out of the total sentence of one year as on 25.11.2025. He has

prayed for passing of appropriate orders in this case.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard and the

judgments passed by both the courts below as well as record of

the case have been perused.

12. It is not in dispute that accused-petitioner was sentenced to

one year's simple imprisonment. It is also undisputed that he has

already undergone a period of seven months of incarceration,

(Uploaded on 16/12/2025 at 12:08:35 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53965] (4 of 4) [CRLR-986/2025]

apart from having suffered the ordeal of a protracted trial.

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and

the period already undergone by the petitioner, it would be just

and proper to reduce the sentence awarded to the petitioner for

the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, as affirmed by the

appellate court, to the period already undergone.

13. Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. While

maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under

Section 138 of the NI Act, the sentence awarded to him is reduced

to the period already undergone. The sentence of three months'

additional imprisonment awarded in default of payment of fine/

compensation is also waived. As regards compensation amount,

respondent-complainant shall be at liberty to initiate appropriate

proceedings for recovery before the learned trial court. The

accused-petitioner, who is presently in custody, shall be released

forthwith, if not required in any other case.

14. The application for suspension of sentence stands disposed

of accordingly.

15. A copy of this order along with original record of the case be

transmitted back forthwith.

16. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J 97-/Jitender//-

(Uploaded on 16/12/2025 at 12:08:35 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter