Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Pannalal Dangi vs Sunil Solanki (2025:Rj-Jd:16291) on 27 March, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:16291]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 793/2024
Pannalal Dangi S/o Narayanlal, Aged About 45 Years, R/o 64,
Bichli Gali, Jhamarkotda Road, Eklingpura, Teh.girwa, Dist.
Udaipur, Raj. (Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Sunil Solanki S/o Babulal Ji Solanki, R/o 328-F, New
Jodhpur Dairy, Basant Vihar, Hiran Magri, Sector-
5,udaipur, Raj.
2. State Of Rajasthan-State, Through PP
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dinesh Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG
Mr. K.S. Kumpawat, AAAG
Mr. Tribhuwan Gupta
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
27/03/2025
Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner
challenging the judgment dated 25.04.2024 passed by learned
Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Udaipur
(hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') in Criminal Appeal
No.473/2023 by which the appellate court dismissed the appeal
and upheld the judgment dated 04.11.2023 passed by the learned
Special Judicial Magistrate (NI Act) Cases No.1, Udaipur
(hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Regular Criminal
Case No.369/2019 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
[2025:RJ-JD:16291] (2 of 4) [CRLR-793/2024]
Rs.7,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further
undergo one month's SI.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner
took a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant/respondent
No.1 and in lieu thereof, the petitioner had given a cheque bearing
No.852650 amounting the same to the complainant. On
presentation, the said cheque was returned as dishonoured by the
Bank due to insufficient funds in the account. 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 04.11.2023 convicted the accused-
petitioner for offence under Section 138 of NI Act.
Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 04.11.2023,
passed by the learned trial court, an appeal was preferred before
the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide
judgment dated 25.04.2024. 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 has served sentence of ten months' and twelve
[2025:RJ-JD:16291] (3 of 4) [CRLR-793/2024]
days' out of total sentence of one year, therefore, it is prayed that
the sentence awarded to the petitioner for the aforesaid offence
may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
Learned Additional Advocate General and counsel for
complainant have opposed the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner and 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's simple imprisonment, however, he
served the sentence of ten months and twelve days out of total
sentence of one year, 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 more than ten
months, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the
trial court for offence under Section 138 of NI Act and affirmed by
the appellate court is reduced to the period already undergone by
him.
Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. While
maintaining the petitioner's conviction and sentence for offence
under Section 138 of NI Act, the default sentence awarded to him
is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by him. So far
as the compensation amount is concerned, the respondent No.1-
complainant shall be free to initiate proceedings for recovery of
[2025:RJ-JD:16291] (4 of 4) [CRLR-793/2024]
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.
Application for suspension of sentence is already decided.
Record of the case, if received, be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
223-GKaviya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
