Partly allowed

Badrilal v. State

Rajasthan HC22 May 2024CRLR/470/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against conviction for criminal breach of trust by a salesperson who embezzled funds of an organisation. Court upheld the conviction but, citing prolonged pendency since 2004 and detention undergone, reduced the one-year sentence to the period already undergone and discharged bail bonds.

What did the court decide?

Conviction maintained; sentence reduced to period already undergone; bail bonds discharged; pending applications disposed.

Badrilal Vs State — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:23397]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 470/2004

¶4

Badrilal S/o Chhogalal Ji Chhipa (Hindu), R/o Ghandhi Nagar, Chittorgarh.

----Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. R.S. Chundawat
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Gaurav Singh,PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

¶11

Order

¶12

22/05/2024

¶13

This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner against the judgment dated 11.06.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Chittorgarh in Cr. Appeal No.100/2001 whereby the judgment dated 19.06.2001 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chittorgarh in Cr. Original Case No.140/1998 was upheld and the petitioner was sentenced vide

¶14

order dated 19.06.2001 as below:

¶15

Conviction for Offence Under Section	Sentences
408 IPC	One Year’s simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/-, and in
	default of payment of fine, to further undergo additional three months’ simple imprisonment.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the prosecution story, on 10.11.1998, the complainant – Navratan

[2024:RJ-JD:23397]

[CRLR-470/2004]

(2 of 6)

Patwari (PW-02) submitted a written report before the SHO of Police Station Chanderiya alleging inter alia that the petitioner was working as a salesperson at Sarvodaya Sadhna Sangh, Chanderiya and remained absent from duty since 27.04.1997. Upon audit of the accounts of the Sangh being conducted, it was found that the petitioner had withdrawn an amount of Rs.22,207.64/- for his personal use, so also he had embezzled the stock worth of Rs.20,377/-. It was submitted that although petitioner promised to deposit the said amount in installments but the same was not done.

¶21

On the basis of the aforesaid report, an FIR No. 23/1998 came to be registered at Police Station Chanderiya against the accused- petitioner for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC and investigation was commenced. After filing of the charge sheet for the offence under Section 408 IPC, and upon completion of the trial, the petitioner was convicted by the learned trial court below for the offence under Section 408 of IPC vide judgment dated 19.06.2001 which was upheld by the learned appellate court vide judgment dated 11.06.2004.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that incident in the present case relates to the year 1998. The petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel vehemently submitted that a purely civil dispute between the parties has been given a color of criminal offence only with a view to harass and humiliate the present petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that there is no positive evidence available on record indicating his guilt in commission of

[2024:RJ-JD:23397]

[CRLR-470/2004]

(3 of 6)

the alleged crime. Merely on the basis of audit report, bills and entries in the register, it cannot be said that the petitioner had embezzled the said amount.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the sentences so awarded to the revisionist-petitioner were suspended by this Court, vide order dated 21.07.2004 in S.B.Cr. Misc. Bail (Suspension of Sentences) Application No.122/2004 .

¶28

Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner in the alternative submitted that the occurrence relates to the year 1998 and the petitioner has already served some part of the sentence awarded to him. The petitioner is facing agony of a long protracted trial and therefore, the sentence awarded to him may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by him.

¶29

Per Contra , learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgments and therefore, the same do not call for any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court. However, he was not in a position to dispute the fact that the present revision petition is pending since 2004.

¶30

Heard.

¶31

A perusal of the impugned judgments makes is manifest that the alleged incident happened in the year 1998 and the present revision petition is pending adjudication since 2004. The record of the case indicates that petitioner had already undergone detention for some period and since the case is pending before this Court since 2004, the petitioner had suffered both financial hardships and mental agony.

(4 of 6)

[2024:RJ-JD:23397]

[CRLR-470/2004]

Hon’ble The Supreme Court of India in the case of Alister

¶36

Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012)2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. (1998)9 SCC 678, pleased to observe as under:

¶37

Alister Anthony Pareira ( supra )

¶38

“There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances.”

¶39

Haripada Das ( supra )

¶40

“… considering the fact that the respondent had already undergone detention for some period and the case is pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered both financial hardship and mental agony and also considering the fact that he had been released on bail as far back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice will be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone...”

¶41

In the light of aforesaid discussion and precedent law, the alternative prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner had undergone detention for some period, thus, without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present petitioner may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by him, deserves acceptance.

¶42

Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 408 of IPC, the sentence awarded to him is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by him. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.

[2024:RJ-JD:23397]

[CRLR-470/2004]

(5 of 6)

All pending applications (if any) also stand disposed of

¶47

accordingly.

¶48

Record of the case be sent back to the learned court below forthwith.

¶49

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶50

17-TarunGoyal/-

¶51

[2024:RJ-JD:23397] (6 of 6) [CRLR-470/2004]

Badrilal v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Badrilal v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Keshu Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Ram Lal Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Laxman Nath Vs State of Rajasthan

Ankit Vs State of Rajasthan

Kailash Kanwa Vs State of Rajasthan

Fazal Vs State