Laxman Mandal vs State
2025 Latest Caselaw 10704 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Laxman Mandal vs State on 17 June, 2025

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2025:RJ-JD:26771]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                           JODHPUR
          S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 718/2011

Laxman Mandal s/O Parmeshwar Mandal, Aged 60 years, R/o
Duboli, District Baka (Baka) Bihari Thana Amarpur. At present at
Shahpura Kalingari Gate, District Bhilwara Rajasthan
                                                    ----Petitioner
                             Versus
State Of Rajasthan
                                                                   ----Respondent



For Petitioner(s)            :    Ms. Priyanka Borana
                                  Mr. V.R. Choudhary
For Respondent(s)            :    Mr. S.S. Rathore, Dy.G.A.



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

                                       Order

ORDER RESERVED ON                         :::                      23/05/2025
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON                       :::                      17/06/2025
BY THE COURT:-

1. The petitioner was tried and convicted for committing an

offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by

judgment dated 27.10.2010, passed by the learned Judicial

Magistrate, Bhilwara, in Criminal Regular Case No. 212/2001

(533/98). He was sentenced to undergo one month's simple

imprisonment along with a fine of ₹5,000/- and in default of

payment of fine, he was directed to further undergo two months'

simple imprisonment.

2. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner preferred an

appeal, being Criminal Appeal No. 153/2010, the learned

Appellate Court vide judgment dated 16.07.2011 reappreciated

the evidence on record and found no illegality in the judgment

passed by the Trial Court. Consequently, the conviction of the

[2025:RJ-JD:26771] (2 of 3) [CRLR-718/2011]

petitioner was upheld however, the sentence awarded by the Trial

Court was modified and it was directed that if the appellant

deposits ₹7,000/- with the Trial Court within a period of one

month, the period already undergone by him would be treated

sufficient for the purpose of sentence. It was further made clear

that if the said amount is not deposited within the stipulated

period, the order of sentence passed by the Trial Court would

become operative.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

both the judgments as well as the record of the case. Upon careful

consideration, I am of the opinion that the amount of ₹7,000/-

was indeed found to be deficient in the public record. The property

in question was entrusted to the petitioner, who was under a legal

obligation to maintain proper accounts. The submission made on

behalf of the petitioner, seeking to justify the deficiency on the

basis of a presumed common understanding or lack of accounting,

cannot be accepted.

3.1. A public servant is duty bound to maintain accurate and

complete records of every single item, whether large or small, in a

register or any other official record maintained in the office.

Misappropriation or defalcation of public funds or property by a

public servant is a grave matter and cannot be condoned.

3.2. The learned Appellate Court has already taken a lenient view

by modifying the sentence and giving an opportunity to the

petitioner to deposit the amount in lieu of further imprisonment. I

find no valid ground to interfere with the said judgment. However,

taking a further lenient view, the petitioner is granted liberty to

deposit the amount of ₹7,000/- within a period of 90 days from

[2025:RJ-JD:26771] (3 of 3) [CRLR-718/2011]

today, if the same has not already been deposited. It is made

clear that if the amount is deposited within this extended period,

the petitioner shall not be required to undergo the sentence

awarded by the Trial Court failing which, the order of sentence of

the trial Court shall be rejuvenated automatically.

4. Accordingly, the instant revision petition is dismissed. The

record of the case be sent back forthwith.

(FARJAND ALI),J 1-Mamta/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)