Mahendrateji vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:7490)
2026 Latest Caselaw 2091 Raj

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 2091 Raj
Judgement Date : 10 February, 2026

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Mahendrateji vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:7490) on 10 February, 2026

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2026:RJ-JD:7490]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
        S.B. Suspension Of Sentence(Revision) No. 358/2025

                                        in

             S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1545/2025

1.       Mahendrateji S/o Shri Sukhram Teji, Aged About 40
         Years, Resident Of A/dbt Nagar, Madhuban Colony, Police
         Station Basni, House Of Bhalji Patel, Jodhpur. (Presently
         Lodged In Central Jail, Jodhpur)
2.       Prakash Giri Alias Monty Goswami S/o Shri Mohangiri,
         Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of House Number 4/254,
         Dwarkapura Yojna, Kudi Housing Board, Jodhpur As
         Tenant,    Permanent          Address         Madan       Giris    House,
         Kuchaman House, Jodhpur. (Presently Lodged In Central
         Jail, Jodhpur)
                                                                   ----Petitioners
                                    Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Pp
                                                                  ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Rakesh Gaur
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Shriram Choudhary, AGA



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

10/02/2026

1. The instant application seeking suspension of sentence has

been preferred alongwith the criminal revision petition preferred

by the petitioners under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973, assailing the judgment dated

06.03.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 25/2015 (CIS No.

25/2015) by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.5, Jodhpur,

whereby the appeal filed by the State was allowed and the

judgment of acquittal was reversed, and the petitioners were

(Uploaded on 13/02/2026 at 02:30:19 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:7490] (2 of 4) [SOSR-358/2025]

convicted for the offence under Sections 392/34 of the Indian

Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a

term of seven years along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, and in

default of payment of fine, to further undergo two months' simple

imprisonment.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned

appellate court committed a serious error of law in reversing the

well-reasoned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court. It is

contended that the evidence on record did not warrant

interference with the acquittal and that the conviction recorded by

the appellate court is contrary to the settled principles governing

reversal of acquittal. It is further submitted that the revision

petition raises substantial questions touching the legality and

propriety of the impugned judgment. The hearing of the revision is

likely to take a considerable time; therefore, the petitioners pray

for suspension of sentence.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the

application for suspension of sentence and submits that the

petitioners stand convicted for a serious offence and do not

deserve indulgence of this Court.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

5. In the present case, the learned trial court, upon a

comprehensive appreciation of the oral and documentary

evidence, had recorded an order of acquittal in favour of the

accused-petitioners. The State preferred an appeal against the

(Uploaded on 13/02/2026 at 02:30:19 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:7490] (3 of 4) [SOSR-358/2025]

said judgment, and the appellate court reversed the acquittal and

convicted the petitioners. In the backdrop of a revision petition,

the scope of examination before this Court is undoubtedly limited;

however, where the material placed on record prima facie

indicates that the reversal of acquittal may not be in consonance

with the settled parameters governing interference with an order

of acquittal, and where the findings recorded by the appellate

court appear to be open to serious doubt, this Court cannot

remain a mute spectator. The grounds raised in the revision

disclose arguable issues touching upon the legality, propriety and

correctness of the impugned judgment, particularly with respect to

the manner in which the evidence has been re-appreciated and

the reasons assigned for dislodging the findings of the trial court.

Without commenting upon the merits of the case and keeping in

view that the revision petition is not likely to be heard in the near

future, this Court is of the considered opinion that a case for

suspension of sentence is made out.

6. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence is

allowed and it is ordered that the sentence passed against the

petitioners by the learned appellate court shall remain suspended

till final disposal of the criminal revision petition. The petitioners

shall be released on bail provided each of them furnishes a

personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- along with two sureties

of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge,

for their appearance before this Court whenever ordered to do so,

subject to the following conditions:

(Uploaded on 13/02/2026 at 02:30:19 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:7490] (4 of 4) [SOSR-358/2025]

(i) That the petitioners shall appear before the trial Court in the

month of January of every year till disposal of the revision

petition.

(ii) That if the petitioners change their place of residence, they

shall intimate the changed address in writing to the trial Court as

well as to their counsel before this Court.