Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mahendra Singh vs Krishna Stone (2025:Rj-Jd:16304) on 27 March, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:16304]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1369/2024
Mahendra Singh S/o Bhur Singh, Aged About 41 Years, R/o
Luharo Ka Bas, Siwana, Dist. Barmer,raj. (At Present Lodged In
Central Jail, Jodhpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Krishna Stone, Through Proprietor Manoj, Dali Bai
Choraha, Bypass Jodhpur, Dist. Jodhpur,raj.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nrapen Shankar Acharya
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lalit Kishor Sen, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
27/03/2025
Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for
condonation of delay in filing the present criminal revision petition
has been filed.
For the reasons stated in the application, the application is
allowed. Delay in filing the present criminal revision petition is
hereby condoned.
1. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner
challenging the judgment dated 22.09.2023 in criminal appeal
No.276/2022 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.4,
Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate
court') by which the appellate court dismissed the appeal and
upheld the judgment dated 08.07.2022 in criminal original case
No.789/2019 passed by the learned Special Metropolitan
Magistrate, (NI Act Cases) No.8, Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter
[2025:RJ-JD:16304] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1369/2024]
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 three months' S.I. along
with fine of Rs.70,000/- and in default of fine, additional one
month's S.I.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner
purchased a stone cutting machine for Rs.2,60,000/- from the
complainant/respondent and in return gave him five cheques. He
presented one of the cheques at State Bank of India, Branch Basni
Industrial Area on 20.01.2016, but the said cheque was returned
as dishonoured by the Bank on 23.02.2016. 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 08.07.2022 convicted the accused-
petitioner for offence under Section 138 of NI Act.
5. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 08.07.2022,
passed by the learned trial court, an appeal was preferred before
the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide
judgment dated 22.09.2023. Hence, this revision petition.
[2025:RJ-JD:16304] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1369/2024]
6. 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 about one month and ten days of
sentence, out of total sentence of three months' S.I., therefore, it
is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner
for the aforesaid offence may be reduced to the period already
undergone by him.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner 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 sentenced
to a period of three moths' simple imprisonment, however, the
petitioner has so far undergone a period of one month and ten
days in custody, out of three months 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 one month and ten days, it will be just and
proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under
Section 138 of NI Act is reduced from three months 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 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.
[2025:RJ-JD:16304] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1369/2024]
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
44-GKaviya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
