Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Roshanlal vs Parasram (2025:Rj-Jd:1474) on 9 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:1474]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1287/2024
Roshanlal S/o Mohanlal, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Opp. Bsnl
Office, Devgarh, Dist. Rajsamand, Raj. (Lodged In Dist.
Rajsamand) ----Petitioner
Versus
Parasram S/o Unkar, R/o Kothariya, Teh. Nathdwara, Dist.
Rajsamand, Raj. ----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anuj Sahlot
Mr. Digvijay Singh Chouhan
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
09/01/2025
1. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner
challenging the judgment dated 06.04.2024 in criminal appeal
No.08/2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Nathdwara (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') by
which the appellate court dismissed the appeal and upheld the
judgment dated 23.02.2017 in criminal case No.409/2008 passed
by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nathdwara (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.80,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo
three months' S.I.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner
borrowed some money from the complainant/respondent and
assured him to return the same. The petitioner had given two
cheques amounting to Rs.12,000/- bearing No.720471 and
[2025:RJ-JD:1474] (2 of 3) [CRLR-1287/2024]
Rs.36,000/- bearing No.720470 of Punjab National Bank,
Rajsamand to the complainant. On presentation, the said cheques
were 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.
3. 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 examined and exhibited nine 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.
4. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
judgment and order dated 23.02.2017 convicted the accused-
petitioner for offence under Section 138 of NI Act.
5. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 23.02.2017,
passed by the learned trial court, an appeal was preferred before
the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide
judgment dated 06.04.2024. Hence, this revision.
6. 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 5 months and 20 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.
[2025:RJ-JD:1474] (3 of 3) [CRLR-1287/2024]
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
judgments passed by both the courts below regarding conviction
of the accused-petitioner.
8. 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 5 months and 20
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 5 months and 20 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.
9. 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. So far as the compensation
amount is concerned, the respondent/complainant shall be free to
initiate proceedings for recovery of the compensation amount
before the trial court.
10. The accused-petitioner is in custody and shall be released
forthwith, if not required in any other case.
11. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
12. Record of the Courts below be sent back.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
16-Rashi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
