Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Babu Lal Chaudhary vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:5435) on 28 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:5435]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 663/2024
Babu Lal Chaudhary S/o Ganesh Lal Chaudhary, Aged About 58
Years, R/o Plot No.30, Ground Floor, Bajaj Bhawan, Bhopalpura,
Tehsil And District Udaipur (At Present Lodged At Central Jail
Udaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Dinesh Bajaj S/o Lakshman Dass Bajaj, R/o Plot No.30,
Ground Floor, Bajaj Bhawan, Bhopalpura, Tehsil And
District Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Moti Singh
Mr. Shekhar Mewara
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Kumar Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
28/01/2025
Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner
challenging the judgment dated 05.03.2024 passed by learned
Special Judge SC/ST (POA), Udaipur, (hereinafter referred to as
'the appellate court') by which the appellate court dismissed the
appeal and upheld the judgment dated 20.10.2023 passed by the
learned Special Judicial Magistrate (NI Act Cases) No.2, Udaipur
(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 one year's SI
along with fine of Rs.4,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine,
to further undergo three months' SI.
[2025:RJ-JD:5435] (2 of 4) [CRLR-663/2024]
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner
took a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant/respondent
No.2 and in lieu thereof, the petitioner had given a cheque bearing
No.329226 of ICICI Bank Ltd, Branch 2 Madhuban Udaipur for a
sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant. On presentation, the
said cheque was 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.
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 charges and claimed for trial. During trial,
the complainant examined himself as witness and got exhibited
certain documents. Thereafter statement of the petitioner under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded.
After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
judgment and order dated 20.10.2023 convicted the accused-
petitioner for offence under Section 138 of NI Act.
Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 20.10.2023,
passed by the learned trial court, an appeal was preferred before
the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide
judgment dated 05.03.2024. Hence, this revision.
At the threshold, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the
accused petitioner is behind the bars and he has already served
the total sentence of one year and now he is serving the default
sentence, therefore, it is prayed that the default sentence awarded
[2025:RJ-JD:5435] (3 of 4) [CRLR-663/2024]
to the petitioner for the aforesaid offence may be reduced to the
period already undergone by him.
Despite service, no one has appeared on behalf of the
respondent No.2-complainant.
On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed
the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
The learned PP 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.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
judgments passed by both the courts below regarding conviction
of the accused-petitioner.
It is not disputed that the accused petitioner was sentenced
to a period of one year simple imprisonment and he has already
served the said sentence and now he is serving the default
sentence of three months, so also suffered the agony and trauma
of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and
the fact that now the petitioner is serving the default sentence of
three months, it will be just and proper if the default sentence
awarded by the trial court for offence under Section 138 of NI Act
is reduced from three months to the period already undergone by
the petitioner.
Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. While
maintaining the petitioner's conviction for offence under Section
138 of NI Act, the default sentence awarded to him is hereby
reduced to the period already undergone. So far as the
compensation amount is concerned, the respondent No.2-
complainant shall be free to initiate proceedings for recovery of
[2025:RJ-JD:5435] (4 of 4) [CRLR-663/2024]
the compensation amount before the trial court. The accused-
petitioner is in custody and shall be released forthwith, if not
required in any other case.
The record of trial Court as well as the appellate court be
sent back forthwith.
Application for suspension of sentence is also decided
accordingly.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
81-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
