In this criminal revision, the High Court reduced the petitioner's sentence for cheque bouncing to the period already undergone and waived additional imprisonment in default of fine maintenance.
Sentence reduced to period undergone; 15 days' additional imprisonment for default of fine waived; accused released forthwith.
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.
[2024:RJ-JD:19156]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 110/2024
Dalchand S/o Ganeshmal, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Ward No. 20 Rawatsar Tehsil Rawatsar District Hanumangarh (At Present Lodged At The Central Jail Bikaner)
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Venkat Poonia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
02/05/2024
Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 29.08.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Nohar, District Hanumangarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellate court’) by which the appellate court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment dated 27.02.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’) whereby, the learned trial court convicted the present petitioner for offence under Section 138 of NI Act. However, the learned appellate court enhanced the sentence of the petitioner from six months’ SI to one year & six months’ SI while maintaining the fine amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and in default of
[2024:RJ-JD:19156]
[CRLR-110/2024]
(2 of 4)
payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days’ additional imprisonment.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on need, the petitioner took loan of Rs.1,30,000/- from the complainant and in lieu thereof, the petitioner had given a cheque bearing No.570864 of Punjab National Bank, Branch Rawatsar amounting to Rs.1,30,000/-, to the complainant. On presentation, the said cheque was returned as dishonoured by the Bank. The complainant served a legal notice upon the petitioner on 11.06.2010 through his advocate and demanded the amount of cheque but the petitioner did not pay any amount to the complainant.
On the basis of the above complaint, the learned trial court took cognizance in the matter and ultimately framed charge for offence under Section 138 NI Act against the petitioner. The petitioner denied the charge and claimed for trial. During trial the complainant got himself examined and got exhibited certain documents. Thereafter statement of the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. In defence no evidence, oral or documentary, was produced by the petitioner.
After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide judgment and order dated 27.02.2019 convicted the accusedpetitioner for offence under Section 138 of NI Act.
Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 27.02.2019, passed by the learned trial court, an appeal was preferred before the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 29.08.2022. However, the learned appellate court
[2024:RJ-JD:19156]
[CRLR-110/2024]
(3 of 4)
enhanced the sentence from six months’ SI to one & six months’ SI. Hence, this revision.
At the threshold, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the accused petitioner has served about six months of sentence, out of total sentence of one year & six months, therefore, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner for the aforesaid offence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner 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.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments passed by both the courts below regarding conviction of the accused-petitioner.
It is not disputed that the accused petitioner was sentenced to a period of one year & six months’ simple imprisonment by the appellate court, however, the petitioner has so far undergone a period of six months in custody, out of one year & six months of total sentence, so also suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that he has remained behind the bars for about six months, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Section 138 of NI Act is reduced from one year & six months to the period already undergone by the petitioner.
[2024:RJ-JD:19156]
[CRLR-110/2024]
(4 of 4)
Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the petitioner’s conviction for offence under Section 138 of NI Act, the sentence awarded to him is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by him. The sentence of 15 days’ additional imprisonment awarded in default of payment of fine/compensation is also waived. So far as the compensation amount is concerned, the respondent No.2-complainant shall be free to initiate proceedings for recovery of the compensation amount before the trial court. The accused-petitioner is in custody and shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Application for suspension of sentence is also decided.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
131-MS/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the substantive sentence awarded for offence under Section 138 of NI Act should be reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner.
Whether the additional imprisonment in default of payment of fine should be waived.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dalchand S/o Ganeshmal
State Of Rajasthan
Subhash Singh S/o Mohan Singh
Manoj Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
