Partly allowed

Suresh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Rajasthan HC11 May 2015CRLR/846/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision under Section 138 of the NI Act, the High Court partly allowed the petition. It upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to the period already served. A payment of Rs.6,000 was directed to be deposited within a month to cancel bail bonds; failure to do so would result in serving the original sentence.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to period undergone; petitioner directed to deposit Rs.6,000 within one month; bail bonds cancellable upon deposit; original sentence provisable upon failure to deposit.

Suresh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors. — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH

¶2

J U D G M E N T

¶3

S.B.CRIMINAL REV. PET. NO. 846/2010 (Suresh Kumar Vs. State)

¶4

DATE OF JUDGMENT ::::: 11/05/2015

¶5

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶6

Mr.Shyam Bihari Gautam for Mr.Pankaj Gupta, for petitioner/s.

¶7

Mr.RS Shekhawat, Public Prosecutor for State. Mr.Nawal Singh Sikarwar, for respondent/s.

¶8

This revision petition has been filed against the impugned judgment & order dated 16.7.2010 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bandikui, Distt. Dausa in cr. appeal no. 27/2006 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and upheld the judgment of conviction dated 11.5.2006 passed by learned ACJM, Bandikui, Distt. Dausa in cr. case no. 190/2003 whereby the petitioner has been convicted under Sec.138 of NI Act and sentenced to one year SI and fine of Rs.1,50,000/-.

¶9

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondent no.2 filed a complaint under Sec.138 of NI Act against the petitioner and his two brothers regarding dishonour of cheque. After usual investigation, police filed charge-sheet before the concerned court/Magistrate, who lateron framed charges for the aforesaid offence, to which the petitioner denied and claimed to be tried. The

¶10

prosecution examined witnesses and got exhibited certain documents. Statement of petitioner under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced the petitioner as indicated above vide judgment dated 11.5.2006.

¶11

Against the said judgment dated 11.5.2006, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate court who vide judgment dated 16.7.2010 dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of trial court dated 11.5.2006. Hence this revision petition has been preferred.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that both the parties have entered into a compromise, copy of which should be taken on record, whereby it has been amicably settled down that the petitioner will have to pay Rs.6,000/- to the complainant within a period of one month either through cheque or draft or cash and only in that event his bail bonds will be canceled.

¶13

It has also been contended that without going into the merits of the case, he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgment of the court below, but he is only requesting to this court that the sentence awarded to the petitioner may be reduced to the period already undergone by him in custody on the grounds that accused petitioner has remained in custody for approximately 07 days, the occurrence relates to year 2002 i.e. 13 years ago, the petitioner is facing trial

¶14

since long, he is not habitual offender, no case is pending against him, hence he should be released on probation, if not, then his sentence may be reduced for the period already undergone by him in confinement, as indicated herein above.

¶15

Mr.Nawal Singh Sikarwar, counsel for the complainant/respondent does not oppose the compromise arrived at between the parties which is taken on record. But the learned Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the same and contended that the impugned orders passed by the courts below are just and proper. Hence there is no need to interfere with the impugned judgments.

¶16

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record.

¶17

Looking to the facts & circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner that accused has remained in custody for approximately 07 days, he is not the habitual offender, no case is made out against him, and compromise has been arrived at between the parties, I think it just and proper to reduce the sentence already undergone by the petitioner.

¶18

In the result, the revision petition is partly allowed with the following directions:

¶19

(i) The conviction of the petitioner is maintained.

¶20

(ii) His sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him in confinement, as indicated above.

¶21

(iii) The amount of Rs.6000/- shall be deposited by the petitioner before the trial court within a period of one month and same be disbursed to the complainant/respondent immediately

¶22

(iv)If the said amount of Rs.6,000/- is not deposited by the petitioner within one month, then he will serve the sentence as awarded by the trial court.

¶23

(v)The sentence of the accused petitioner was suspended and he is on bail. He need not to surrender now.

¶24

(vi) The bail bonds shall be canceled only after depositing the aforesaid amount of Rs.6,000/- with the trial court.

¶25

(vii) Impugned judgment of the courts below stands modified, as indicated here-in-above.

¶26

(MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA)J.

¶27

Sandeep/-74

¶28

All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being e-mailed. SANDEEP RAWAT,Sr.P.A.s

Suresh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Polu Ram Vs Heera Lal and Anor

Babu Lal Vs State

Siya Ram Vs Sammander

Bagru Vegetable Printing Worka Vs State and Anr.

Smt.Memuna Bewa Vs State and Anr.

Babulal and Ors. Vs State