Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ummed Ram vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:4195) on 22 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:4195]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 846/2005
Ummed Ram S/o Ratna Ram, B/c Jat R/o Garal, P.S. Barmer
Sadar.
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shailendra Gwala
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sonu Manawat, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
22/01/2025
1. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner
challenging the judgment dated 14.09.2005 passed in Cr. Appeal
No.27/2005 by learned Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track,
Balotra, Headquarter Barmer (hereinafter referred to as 'the
appellate court') by which the appellate court dismissed the
petitioner's appeal and upheld the judgment dated 10.01.2002
passed in Cr. Case No.80/1998 by learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Barmer (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') by
which the learned trial Judge convicted the petitioner for offence
under Section 409 IPC and sentenced him to undergo two years'
R.I. and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of
fine, to further undergo 50 days' S.I.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 27.01.1997, the
complainant Ishak Khan gave a written report at Police Station
Barmer to the extent that he took a loan from Barmer Gram Sewa
[2025:RJ-JD:4195] (2 of 4) [CRLR-846/2005]
Sahkari Samiti Limited few years ago. Thereafter, he has re-payed
the loan and obtained receipts from Ummeda Ram, Ex-
administrator Barmer Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Limited. Despite
repayment of loan, a demand notice has been issued to the
complainant and thereafter, present Administrator Tulcha Singh
has been inquired and it has been found that the receipts are
forged. Upon the aforesaid information, an FIR was registered and
after usual investigation, charge-sheet came to be submitted
against the petitioner in the Court concerned.
3. On completion of investigation, the Police filed challan before
the concerned court. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charges
for offence under Section 409 of IPC against the petitioner who
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as 5 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited various
documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused-petitioner
under section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded.
5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 10.01.2002 convicted and sentenced
the accused-petitioner for aforesaid offence.
6. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the
petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court,
which came to be partly allowed vide judgment dated 14.09.2005.
Hence, this revision petition against the conviction and sentence of
the accused-petitioner.
7. At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner
submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but
since the occurrence is related to the year 1997 and out of total
[2025:RJ-JD:4195] (3 of 4) [CRLR-846/2005]
sentence of two years' R.I., the accused petitioner has already
served about 6 days of imprisonment, therefore, it is prayed that
the sentence awarded to the petitioner for the aforesaid offence
may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-
petitioner and submitted that there is neither any occasion to
interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused petitioner nor
any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case.
9. I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as
defence and the judgment passed by the courts below regarding
conviction of the accused-petitioner.
10. Undisputedly, the incident relates back to the year 1997 and
the petitioner has so far undergone a period of about 6 days in
custody out of two years of total sentence, so also suffered the
agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all
circumstances and the fact that the petitioner has remained
behind the bars for some time, it will be just and proper, if the
sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Section 409
of IPC and affirmed by the appellate court is reduced to the period
already undergone by the petitioner.
11. Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. While
maintaining the petitioner's conviction for offence under Section
409 of IPC, the sentence awarded to him for the aforesaid offence
is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The fine
amount is waived. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender.
His bail bonds are discharged. Pending applications, if any, shall
stand disposed of.
[2025:RJ-JD:4195] (4 of 4) [CRLR-846/2005]
12. The record of trial Court as well as the appellate court be
sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
11-Rashi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
