Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ashfak Ahmed vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:12387) on 5 March, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:12387]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 242/2024
Ashfak Ahmed S/o Shri Fafooq Ahmed, Aged About 65 Years, R/o
Pipar City At Present Gotal Tehsil And Dist Nagaur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Johra Praveen W/o Asfak Ahmed, R/o Mobinpura, Near Petrol
Pump, Pipar Road, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Firoz Khan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP with
Mr. OP Choudhary
Mr. M. Ismail Khan
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
05/03/2025
Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner
against the order dated 24.01.2024, passed by learned Sessions
Judge, Jodhpur District in Cr. Appeal No.18/2022 whereby the
learned appellate court partly allowed the appeal of the accused-
petitioner and while affirming the judgment of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Pipar City, District Jodhpur, dated 16.04.2022 passed
in Cr. Original Case No.101/2010 to the extent of conviction for
offences under Sections 498A & 323 IPC, set aside the sentence
and instead gave benefit of probation and imposed a fine of
Rs.60,000/-, out of which Rs.50,000/- was ordered to be given to
the respondent No.2.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter was listed
before this Court on 16.02.2024 and this Court while issuing
[2025:RJ-JD:12387] (2 of 3) [CRLR-242/2024]
notices to the respondent No.2, granted interim order to the effect
that if the appellant deposits Rs.30,000/- in compliance of the
appellate order dated 24.01.2024, then the rest of the amount
shall remain stayed. Counsel submits that in pursuance of the said
interim order, the appellant has already deposited Rs.30,000/-
before the trial court. Counsel submits that he does not challenge
the finding of conviction given by the courts below, but
considering the facts that the fine of Rs.60,000/- as imposed by
the appellant court is too harsh and the appellant being an
indigent person is unable to deposit the said fine amount and the
probation period of one year has already passed, therefore, it is
prayed that the fine imposed by the appellate court may be
waived or in the alternatively reduced the same appropriately.
Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for
respondent No.2 have opposed the prayer made by the counsel for
the petitioner.
I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for
the parties and perused the judgments of the appellate court as
well as trial court and also gone through the entire record.
Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case as
well as considering the facts that the incident relates back to the
year 2010 and the fine imposed by the appellate court upon the
petitioner while giving benefit of probation is too harsh and the
petitioner is an indigent person and is unable to pay the whole fine
amount and the period of probation has already passed it will be
just and proper, if the fine imposed by the appellant court is
reduced from Rs.60,000/- to Rs.30,000/-.
[2025:RJ-JD:12387] (3 of 3) [CRLR-242/2024]
Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. The
petitioner's conviction for offence under Sections 498A, 323 IPC is
hereby maintained and the appellate court has rightly given
probation to the petitioner for the said offences. However, so far
as fine imposed by the appellate court is concerned while giving
the benefit of probation, the same is reduced from Rs.60,000/- to
Rs.30,000/-. Since, the petitioner has already deposited the fine
amount of Rs.30,000/- before the trial court, the same may be
disbursed to the respondent No.2 immediately on an application
being filed.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
150-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
