Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Babu Lal Chaudhary vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:15411) on 24 March, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:15411]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 579/2024
Babu Lal Chaudhary S/o Ganesh Lal Chaudhary, Aged About 58
Years, R/o Plot No. 30, Ground Floor, Bajaj Bhawan, Bhopalpura,
Tehsil And Dist. 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 Dist.
Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Choudhary, son of the
petitioner
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA cum AAG
with Mr. Kuldeep Singh Kumpawat
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
24/03/2025
1. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner
challenging the judgment dated 05.03.2024 in Criminal Appeal
No.384/2023 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention
of Atrocities) Cases, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the
appellate court') by which the appellate court dismissed the
appeal and upheld the judgment dated 28.07.2023 in CIS
No.8111/2014 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate,
(NI Act Cases) No.II, 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.I. along with fine of Rs.2,00,000/-, in
default of fine to undergo three months' S.I.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner
borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant/respondent No.2
[2025:RJ-JD:15411] (2 of 3) [CRLR-579/2024]
and assured him to return the same. The petitioner had given a
cheque bearing No.760326 amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- to the
complainant on 15.04.2012. On presentation, the said cheque was
returned as dishonoured by the Bank as 'account closed' on
04.05.2012. 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.
3. 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 charge and claimed for trial. During trial the
complainant got examined and exhibited various documents.
Thereafter, statement of the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
was recorded.
4. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
judgment and order dated 28.07.2023 convicted the accused-
petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act.
5. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 28.07.2023,
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 petition.
6. At the threshold, Mr. Rahul Choudhary, son of petitioner
appearing on behalf of the accused-petitioner submits that he
does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the accused-
petitioner has served about 24 days of sentence, out of total
sentence of one year S.I., therefore, it is prayed that the
[2025:RJ-JD:15411] (3 of 3) [CRLR-579/2024]
substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner for the aforesaid
offence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
7. Heard the parties and perused the judgments passed by both
the courts below regarding conviction of the accused-petitioner.
8. It is not disputed that the accused-petitioner was sentence to
a period of one year simple imprisonment, however, the petitioner
has so far undergone a period of about 24 days in custody, out of
one year of total sentence, so also suffered the agony and trauma
of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over all circumstances and
the fact that he has remained behind the bars for about 24 days,
it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court
for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act is reduced from one
year S.I. to the period already undergone by the petitioner.
9. Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. While
maintaining the petitioner's conviction for the offence under
Section 138 of NI Act, the sentence awarded to him is hereby
reduced to the period already undergone by him. So far as the
compensation amount is concerned, the respondent/complainant
shall be free to initiate proceedings for recovery of the
compensation amount before the trial court.
10. The accused-petitioner is in custody and shall be released
forthwith, if not required in any other case.
11. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
12. Record of the Courts below be sent back.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
117-mSingh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
