Dharmi Chand vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:4932)
2025 Latest Caselaw 5138 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 5138 Raj
Judgement Date : 22 January, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Dharmi Chand vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:4932) on 22 January, 2025

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2025:RJ-JD:4932]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
            S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1094/2007

Dharmi Chand S/o Gajmal Jain, R/o Khagdi, Police Station
Sambhugarh, Distt. Bhilwara
                                                                  ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
The State of Rajasthan, through PP
                                                                ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Sandeep Saruparia
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Urja Ram Kalbi, PP



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

22/01/2025

By way of filing the present revision petition under Section

397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C., the accused-petitioner

has challenged the judgment dated 13.07.2005 passed by the

learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gulabpura, District

Bhilwara in Cr. Case No.285/2001 whereby he has been convicted

for the offence under Section 409 of IPC and sentenced to

undergo two years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in default of

payment of fine, to further undergo one month's S.I. and the

judgment dated 26.09.2007 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Gulabpura, District Bhilwara in Criminal Appeal

No.20/2005 whereby the judgment of the trial court has been

modified to extent of sentence awarded to the petitioner who was

ordered to undergo two years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in

default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's S.I. to

[2025:RJ-JD:4932] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1094/2007]

3 months' R.I and a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment

of fine, to further undergo 10 days' S.I.

As per the prosecution, the petitioner while working as Post

Master in the post office, embezzled the R.D. funds of the

depositors namely Smt. Kanta Devi, Shri Shankar Singh and Smt.

Gyarsi Devi by receiving the amount from them and not depositing

the same in their respective accounts.

On the basis of the written complaint submitted by the

Superintendent of Post Office, Bhilwara before the SHO of Police

Station Sambhugarh, an FIR No.76/2001 was lodged against the

present petitioner for the offences under Sections 409 and 420 of

IPC and thereafter, a chargesheet for the offence under Section

409 of the IPC was filed and the petitioner was prosecuted for the

said offence. During the course of trial the prosecution examined

as many as 7 witnesses and several documents were also

exhibited.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. He further

submitted that the incident in the present case occurred between

the period 1997 and 2000. Learned counsel further submitted that

looking to the material available on record, it is evident that the

petitioner has already deposited the misappropriated amount back

to the depositor's account long before lodging of the FIR. A

departmental enquiry was also initiated against the petitioner

even when the petitioner has deposited the misappropriated

amount.

[2025:RJ-JD:4932] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1094/2007]

Learned counsel submitted that the sentence awarded to the

petitioner has already been suspended by this Court vide order

dated 09.10.2007.

Learned counsel for the petitioner in the alternative

submitted that since the occurrence relates to year 2000 and the

petitioner has already served some part of the sentence awarded

to him, therefore, the substantive sentence awarded to the

petitioner may be reduced to the period already undergone by

him. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India in the case of Puttaswamy v State of Karnataka:

2009 (1) WLC (SC) (Cri.) 623 and a judgment of Coordinate

Bench of this Court in the case of Kamla Prasad v. State of

Rajasthan: 2014 CriLJ 2582.

Per Contra learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the

learned courts below have rightly awarded the sentence against

the petitioner. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned

judgments/orders and therefore, the same do not call for any

interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record of

the case.

This Court finds concurrent finding of fact with regard to

petitioner being guilty of misappropriating the funds of the

depositors while working at the Post Office, Bhilwara. This Court

also finds that there is no reason available with it to disbelieve the

findings recorded by the learned trial court and the learned

appellate court. However, in the opinion of this Court, since the

incident relates to the year 2000 and the petitioner has suffered

the agony and trauma of protracted trial for about 24 years

[2025:RJ-JD:4932] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1094/2007]

coupled with the fact that the petitioner has spent some period in

custody, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the

trial court for the offence under Section 409 of IPC is reduced to

the period already undergone.

In the result, the revision petition is partly allowed. While

maintaining the petitioner's conviction, his sentence for the

offence under Section 409 of IPC is hereby reduced to the period

already undergone by him.