Allowed

Sushil Maheshwari v. Manju Saini

Rajasthan HC11 Dec 2017CRLR/1544/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the High Court reduced the sentence of imprisonment on account of default of payment of fine imposed on the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court held that since the petitioner had already undergone the substantive sentence and a significant period of default, the remaining default sentence was remitted.

What did the court decide?

The sentence on account of default of payment of fine reduced from six months to the period already undergone; petitioner set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other criminal case.

Sushil Maheshwari Vs Manju Saini — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶2

BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1544/2016.

¶4

Sushil Maheshwari S/o Late Girdhari Lal Ji B/c Mahajan, Aged About 33 Years, R/o House No. 4-A21, Dadabadi Vistar Yojna, Kota (raj.) (at Present in Central Jail Kota)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Manju Saini W/o Devki Nandan Saini D/o Shri Gajanand B/c Mali, R/o House No. 1059, Basant Vihar, Kota (raj.)

¶7

For Petitioner : Shri N.K. Sharma

¶8

For Respondent(s) : Shri Surendra Sharma

¶9

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶10

Judgment / Order

¶11

11/12/2017

¶12

Petitioner had faced trial on a complaint filed by respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) with regard to dishonour of cheque in question. Trial Court vide judgment/order dated 28.1.2015 ordered the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act. Appellant Court vide judgment/order dated 27.7.2016 maintained the conviction of the petitioner but reduced the sentence qua imprisonment from two years to one and a half years.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has already undergone substantive sentence as petitioner is in custody since 29.1.2016. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the sentence required to be undergone by the petitioner on account of default of payment of fine be reduced from six months to

¶14

the period already undergone by the petitioner as the petitioner has already undergone about four and a half months of sentence liable to be undergone by him on account of default of payment of fine.

¶15

Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶16

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and expedient to reduce the sentence liable to be undergone by the petitioner on account of default of payment of fine to the period already undergone by him as the petitioner has already undergone four and a half months of actual sentence out of six months, on this account. So far as the substantive sentence is concerned, petitioner has already undergone one and a half years of the sentence.

¶17

Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with the direction that the sentence of the petitioner liable to be undergone by him on account of default of payment of fine is reduced from six months to the period already undergone by him. Petitioner who is in custody be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other criminal case.

¶18

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶19

(SABINA)J.

¶20

Mrg./36

Sushil Maheshwari v. Manju Saini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil Maheshwari v. Manju Saini

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

Gaurav Thatte Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Banwari Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

M/S Indo Continental Hotels Vs Shri Ishwar Singh and Ors.

Bhupendra Kumar Chaudhary and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Dharmaraj Saini and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Jeetram Gurjar and Anr. Vs State of Raj and Ors.