Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Deepak vs Girish Narayan (2025:Rj-Jd:22992) on 13 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:22992]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 582/2025
Deepak S/o Sh Santosh Chand Jain, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
Pinjaro Ka Bas, Somnath Bhairughat Road, Pali, Currently R/o
10, Lodno Ka Bas, Pali, Tehsil District Pali (Raj.) (At Present
Lodged In Central Jail Jodhpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
Girish Narayan S/o Satyanarayan, Aged About 58 Years, R/o
Nayapura, Sojat City, Tehsil Sojat, Dist. Pali Through Power Of
Attorney Ramesh Tank S/o Jagdish, Aged About 49 Years, R/o
Sojat City, Tehsil Sojat, Dist. Pali (Raj.)
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Priyank Kewaliya for
Mr. Sanjay Raj Pandit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Umesh Shrimali
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
13/05/2025
Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner
challenging the judgment dated 02.05.2025 passed by learned
Additional Session Judge, Sojat, District Pali (hereinafter referred
to as 'the appellate court') in Criminal Appeal No.06/2025 by
which the appellate court partly allowed the appeal and while
maintaining the conviction of the appellant for offence under
Section 138 of NI Act, modified the sentence awarded by the
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sojat in Cr. Case
No.390/2024 vide judgment dated 08.01.2025. The amount of
compensation of Rs.80,000/- has already been deposited by the
[2025:RJ-JD:22992] (2 of 4) [CRLR-582/2025]
appellant before the trial court. The details of the modified
sentence is as under :
Offence Sentence
Section 138 of NI Act 15 days simple imprisonment.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant/
respondent rented his shops to the accused-petitioner. For
payment of the rent of the said shops, the petitioner issued a
cheque of Rs.50,000/- bearing No.001037 dated 12.01.2024 of
HDFC Bank, Pali to the complainant/respondent. On presentation,
the said cheque was returned as dishonoured by the Bank. 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 charge and claimed for trial. During trial the
complainant got himself examined and got exhibited certain
documents. Thereafter statement of the petitioner under Section
313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. In defence the petitioner examined
himself as DW-1 and exhibited certain documents.
After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
judgment and order dated 8.01.2025 convicted the accused-
petitioner for offence under Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced
him to undergo six months SI along with compensation of
[2025:RJ-JD:22992] (3 of 4) [CRLR-582/2025]
Rs.80,000/- and in default of payment of compensation, to further
undergo one month SI.
Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 08.01.2025,
passed by the learned trial court, an appeal was preferred before
the learned appellate court, which came to be partly allowed vide
judgment dated 02.05.2025 and the appellant court while
maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for offence under
Section 138 of NI Act, reduced his sentence from six months SI to
15 days SI. 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 already deposited the compensation
amount of Rs.80,000/- and out of total sentence of 15 days, he
already served 13 days' of sentence, 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.
Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant has
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 trial court sentenced the accused
petitioner for a period of six months simple imprisonment, which
was reduced by the appellate court to 15 days simple
[2025:RJ-JD:22992] (4 of 4) [CRLR-582/2025]
imprisonment, however, the petitioner has so far undergone a
period of 13 days in custody, out of 15 days of total sentence, so
also suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus,
looking to the over-all circumstances and the facts that he has
already deposited the compensation amount and he remained
behind the bars for 13 days, it will be just and proper if the
sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Section 138
of NI Act and modified 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 for offence under Section
138 of NI Act, the sentence awarded to him is hereby reduced to
the period already undergone by him. The amount of
compensation has already been deposited by the petitioner before
the trial court, which shall be disbursed immediately in favour of
the respondent-complainant on an application being filed. The
accused-petitioner is in custody and shall be released forthwith, if
not required in any other case.
Application for suspension of sentence is also decided.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
79-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
