Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Babu Lal Choudhary vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:24728) on 21 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:24728]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 817/2024
Babu Lal Choudhary S/o Shri Ganesh Lal Chaudhary, Aged About
58 Years, R/o Plot No. 30, Ground Floor, Bajaj Bhawan,
Bhopalpura, Tehsil And Dist. Udaipur (At Present Lodged In
Central Jail, Udaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Dilip Singh Chouhan S/o Jagdish Singh, R/o House No.
30, Krishnapura, Gali No. 02, Tehsil And Dist. Udaipur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Mewara and
Mr. Hemandra Singh Sever
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG
Mr. P.K. Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
21/05/2025
1. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner
challenging the judgment dated 19.03.2024 in criminal appeal
No.472/2023 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 03.11.2023 in Criminal
Regular Case No.9148/2014 passed by the learned Special Judicial
Magistrate, (NI Act Cases) No.6, 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 S.I. along with fine of
Rs.8,00,000/-, in default of fine to undergo one month's S.I.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner
borrowed Rs.4,00,000/- from the complainant/respondent No.2
[2025:RJ-JD:24728] (2 of 3) [CRLR-817/2024]
and assured him to return the same. The petitioner had given a
cheque bearing No.400979 amounting to Rs.4,00,000/- to the
complainant on 28.01.2013. On presentation, the said cheque was
returned as dishonoured by the Bank as 'funds insufficient' on
31.01.2013. 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 03.11.2023 convicted the accused-
petitioner for offence under Section 138 of NI Act.
5. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 03.11.2023,
passed by the learned trial court, an appeal was preferred before
the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide
judgment dated 19.03.2024. Hence, this revision petition.
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 27 days of sentence, out of
total sentence of one year's S.I., 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.
[2025:RJ-JD:24728] (3 of 3) [CRLR-817/2024]
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 one year simple imprisonment, however, the
petitioner has so far undergone a period of about 27 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 27 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 one year's 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.
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
98-GKaviya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
