Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Suresh Kumar Soni vs State And Anr. (2025:Rj-Jd:6988) on 4 February, 2025
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2025:RJ-JD:6988]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 499/2016
Suresh Kumar Soni S/o Late Shri Chimanlal Soni, R/o Purani
Abadi, Sriganganagar
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through its PP
2. Satish Kumar S/o Shri Gugal Kishore, R/o H.No.14, Model
Colony, Sriganganagar.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. DS Gharsana
For Respondent(s) : Mr. SS Rathore, PP
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
04/02/2025
1. The present revision petition has been preferred against the
order dated 10.08.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge No.2, Sriganganagar (hereinafter referred to as the
'Appellate Court') in Criminal Appeal No.35/14, whereby the order
dated 30.06.2014 passed by the learned Special Judicial
Magistrate (NI Act Cases) No.1, Sriganganagar (hereinafter
referred to as the 'trial Court') has been affirmed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that one Satish Kumar
(complainant) filed a complaint against the present petitioner
(Suresh) under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1881') interalia stating
that the accused had given a cheque (bearing No.272851)
amounting to Rs.40,000/- on 15.05.2006 under his signature
against the amount which the complainant had lended. It was
[2025:RJ-JD:6988] (2 of 3) [CRLR-499/2016]
stated that when the cheque was presented in the bank, the same
returned/dishonored owing to insufficiency of fund.
3. Appreciating the evidence, the trial Court convicted the
accused-petitioner and sentenced him to undergo six months'
simple imprisonment apart from paying a fine of Rs.60,000/-.
4. Said order passed by the trial Court on 30.06.2014 was
assailed by the present petitioner by filing an appeal (Criminal
Appeal No.35/2014) which was rejected by the Appellate Court
vide its order dated 10.08.2015.
5. Against the above referred order dated 10.08.2015, the
present revision petition has been filed in which the co-ordinate
Bench of this Court has suspended the sentence on the condition
of depositing the fine amount (Rs.60,000).
6. Pursuant to the condition of the order dated 20.05.2016, the
accused-petitioner had deposited the amount of Rs.60,000/- on
25.05.2016 and therefore be enlarged on bail.
7. At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner
submitted that he does not challenge the finding of the conviction
but since the petitioner has substantially served the sentence out
of the total sentence of 6 months' simple imprisonment, the
substantive sentence awarded to him for the offence punishable
under section 138 of the Act of 1881 be reduced to the period
already undergone.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
including the judgments passed by both the Courts below.
9. It is not in dispute that the accused-petitioner has been
sentenced for a period of 6 months' simple imprisonment; out of
[2025:RJ-JD:6988] (3 of 3) [CRLR-499/2016]
which the accused-petitioner has already served about 26 days of
the sentence.
10. Considering that he has endured the agony and trauma of a
protracted trial and the pendency of this case and also because
fine of Rs.60,000/- has already been deposited by him, this Court
is of the view that it will be just and proper to reduce the sentence
awarded by the trial Court for the offence punishable under
section 138 of the Act of 1881 for the period already undergone
by him.
11. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. While
maintaining the petitioner's conviction for offence under section
138 of the Act of 1881, the sentence awarded to him is hereby
reduced to the period already undergone by him.
12. The accused-petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His
bail bonds are hereby cancelled
(DINESH MEHTA),J
123-raksha/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
