Partly allowed

Modiram v. State

Rajasthan HC9 Nov 2023CRLR/794/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision petition challenging conviction for cheating and forgery, the High Court held that while the conviction stands, the total sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone due to the old age of the offense and time spent in custody, maintaining the fine.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to period already undergone; fine maintained; petitioner granted bail; bonds discharged.

Modiram Vs State — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:39053]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 794/2017

¶4

Modiram S/o Lakhma Balai, By Caste Balai, R/o Muoli P.s. Parsoli District Chittorgarh. Presently Lodged At District Jail Chittorgarh

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Umesh Shrimali For Respondent(s) : Mr. Javed Gauri, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

¶11

Order

¶12

09/11/2023

¶13

Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 22.05.2017 passed in Cr. Appeal No.77/2016 by learned Addl. District & Session Judge No.2, Chittorgarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellate court’) by which the appellate court while dismissing the petitioner’s appeal, upheld the judgment dated 01.06.2016 passed in Cr. Original Case No.144/2009 by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begun, District Chittorgarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’) whereby, the learned trial court court convicted and sentenced the present petitioner as under :

¶14

Offence U/s 420 IPC : One year S.I. along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo ten days’ S.I.

¶15

Offence U/s 467 IPC : One year S.I. along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo ten days’ S.I.

[CRLR-794/2017]

[2023:RJ-JD:39053]

(2 of 4)

Offence U/s 468 IPC : One year S.I. along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo ten days’ S.I.

¶20

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

¶21

Brief facts of the case are that on 22.04.2009, an information was received at PS Parsoli given by complainant Hanuman Patel alleging therein that kurja construction work was going to be done under Rastriya Gramin Rojgar Yojana. On inspection dated 31.03.2009, attendance of 10 persons were marked forged in muster roll No.073957 and this was done by the petitioner. On the said information, Police registered the case for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 IPC against the accused petitioner and started investigation.

¶22

After investigation, the police filed challan against the present petitioner for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 IPC. Thereafter, charges were framed by the learned trial court against the petitioner, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

¶23

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses in support of its case and also exhibited some documents. Thereafter, statement of the accused-petitioner under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded. In defence, one witness was examined.

¶24

Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 01.06.2016 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner for aforesaid offence.

¶25

Being aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 22.05.2017.

[2023:RJ-JD:39053]

[CRLR-794/2017]

(3 of 4)

Hence, this revision petition against the conviction and sentence of the accused-petitioner.

¶30

At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the occurrence is related to the year 2009 and out of total sentence of one year S.I., the accused petitioner has already served a period of one month and five days of imprisonment, therefore, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to petitioner for the aforesaid offences may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶31

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accusedpetitioner 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.

¶32

I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment passed by the courts below regarding conviction of the accused-petitioner.

¶33

Undisputedly, the incident relates back to the year 2009 and the petitioner has so far undergone a period of one month and five days in custody out of total sentence of one year SI, so also suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the petitioner has remained behind the bars for some time, it will be just and proper, if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 IPC and affirmed by the appellate court is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner while maintaining the fine amount.

¶34

[2023:RJ-JD:39053]

¶35

[CRLR-794/2017]

¶36

Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the petitioner’s conviction for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 IPC, the sentence awarded to him for the aforesaid offences is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. The fine imposed by the trial court is hereby maintained. Three months’ time is granted to deposit the fine amount before the trial court. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall undergo two months simple imprisonment. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged.

¶37

The record of trial Court as well as the appellate court be sent back forthwith.

¶38

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

¶39

159-MS/-

Modiram v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Modiram v. State

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

Mohan Lal Vs State

Ramswaroop Vs Jagdish Chandra

Kheta Ram Vs State

Akshay Vaghela Vs State of Rajasthan

Dhula @ Dhuleshwar Vs State of Rajasthan

Shama @ Samma Devi Vs State of Rajasthan