High Court of Rajasthan in Special Criminal Revision Petition No. 1088/2004 modified the appealed judgment, refusing probation but reducing the sentence to the period already undergone by the accused.
Sentence reduced to period already undergone; probation denied; bail bonds cancelled.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
JUDGMENT
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1088/2004 (Bagru Vegetable Printing Works & Ors. Versus The State of Rajasthan & Anr.)
Date of Judgment :: 11th May, 2015
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA
Mr. Pawan Kr. Sharma, for the petitioners Mr. Shyam Bihari Gautam, for the respondent no.2 Dr. R.S. Shekhawat, PP for the State
This revision petition has been filed against the judgment/order dated 29.10.2004 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Cr. Appeal No. 212/2004, whereby he partly allowed the appeal filed by the petitioners and while maintaining their conviction for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act, reduced their sentence from 1 years' SI to 3 months' SI and the amount of fine of Rs. 50,000/-, as imposed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrae No. 10, Jaipur City, Jaipur vide judgment dated 11.3.2004 passed in Cr. Case No. 137/2002, has also been maintained.
Brief facts of the case are that one Sanjay Gulati, purporting to be the special power of attorney holder of Smt. Seema Gulati, Proprietor of M/s. V.S. Trade Links filed a complaint against the accused persons under Section 138 of NI Act. The trial court took cognizance of offence U/s. 138 of NI Act and summoned all the accused persons. The
2
substance of accusation was read over to the accused persons, who denied for the same and claimed for trial. After conclusion of trial, the accused persons were convicted U/s. 138 of NI Act by the trial court vide judgment dated 11.3.2004 and sentenced to undergo 1 year's SI with a fine of Rs. 50,000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for three months. Against the said judgment, the accused persons filed an appeal. The appellate court vide judgment dated 29.10.2004 partly allowed the appeal and reduced their substantive sentence from 1 year to 3 months, whereas the conviction of the petitioners and fine imposed upon them were upheld.
Against the said judgment, this revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgments of the court below, but he is only requesting to this court that alleged occurrence took place in the year 1999 i.e. 16 years ago from today; the petitioners are facing the trial since the last 16 years; when the occurrence took place, the petitioners were young at the time of incident and now the petitioners are old aged persons; the petitioners have remained in custody for nearing about 4 months, whereas the sentence awarded to them is only 3 months; the petitioners have already deposited the cheque amount with the trial court; the petitioners are married persons and having the
3
children of marriageable age; they are not the previously convicted persons; hence either they should be given the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act or Section 360 CrPC; and if not; then they should be released for the period already undergone by them in confinement, as indicated here-in-above.
Learned PP appearing for the State assisted by counsel for the respondent no.2 have not opposed the same.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, I do not think it proper to release the accused petitioners on probation, but in my view, ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone by them in confinement, as indicated here-in-above. Hence, this revision petition is disposed of with the following directions:
ii) Their conviction is maintained; iii)Their sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them in confinement, as indicated above. iv) The sentence of the accused
4
petitioners was was suspended and they are on bail. They need not to surrender and their bail bonds stand cancelled.
Impugned judgments stand modified, as indicated hereinabove.
(Mahesh Chandra Sharma), J.
DK
All corrections made in the judgment / order have been incorporated in the judgment / order being E-mailed. Dilip Khandelwal PA
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the accused petitioners should be released on probation or their sentence reduced to the period already undergone?
Whether grant of probation under Section 4 Probation of Offenders Act or Section 360 CrPC was warranted?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
N/AReferred
N/A
3 provisions across 3 enactments
S.B. The State of Rajasthan
M/s. V.S. Trade Links
MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
