Ramesh Chand Bairwa Son of Parmaram Bairwa Owner Filling Station Vs State of Rajasthan

Matter comes up on Criminal Miscellaneous Suspension of Sentence Application No.166/2024 filed by the accused-applicant under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C.

¶17

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that vide order dated 02.11.2019 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh, District Alwar (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court') in Regular Criminal Case No.91/2011 by which the accused-applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter

¶18

[2025:RJ-JP:15367]

¶19

[SOSR-166/2024]

¶20

(2 of 4)

¶21

referred to as the ‘Act of 1881’) and was sentenced for two years' simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.15,00,000/- and in default thereof, further sentence of three months' simple imprisonment.

¶22

Against the judgment dated 03.02.2024 passed by learned trial Court, the accused-applicant preferred a Criminal Appeal No.09/2019, before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, District Alwar (hereinafter referred to as the 'Appellate Court') whereby, the appeal filed on behalf of the accused-applicant was partly allowed by learned Appellate Court and the sentence awarded to the accused-applicant vide the impugned order dated 02.11.2019 was reduced to one year's simple imprisonment.

¶23

Feeling aggrieved of the impugned judgments and orders dated 03.02.2024 and 02.11.2019, the present application for suspension of sentence has been filed by the accused-applicant. 5. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the accused-applicant has surrendered himself before learned trial Court on 20.06.2024 and since then, he is serving his sentence in Central Jail, Alwar. Learned counsel further submits that the maximum sentence awarded to the accused-applicant was one year and as on today, he has already served the sentence of more than ten months.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accusedapplicant contends that the revision petition is not likely to be disposed of in the near future, therefore, the present application filed on behalf of the accused-applicant be allowed and his sentence be suspended.

¶25

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the prayer regarding suspension of sentence and submits

(3 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:15367]

[SOSR-166/2024]

the custody certificate of the petitioner. The custody certificate is taken on record.

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶31

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering that the petition is not likely to be disposed of in near future and the fact that the accused-applicant has served the sentence of more than ten months, but without commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to suspend the sentence awarded to the applicant.

¶32

Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence filed by the accused-applicant is allowed and it is ordered that the sentence awarded vide impugned judgments and orders dated 03.02.2024 and 02.11.2019 to the accused-applicant namely, Ramesh Chand Bairwa S/o Parmaram Bairwa in this matter shall remain suspended during the pendency of this petition on the

¶33

following conditions:

¶34

The accused-applicant shall deposit Rs.5,00,000/- before the trial Court.

¶35

The accused-applicant shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- along with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before this Court on 07.05.2025 and thereafter as and when called upon to do so.

¶36

On deposition of Rs.5,00,000/- by the accused-applicant, learned trial Court is directed to disburse the amount to the complainant/respondent on the undertaking to be furnished by the complainant/respondent that in case the accused-applicant succeeds in this petition then the complainant/respondent shall

¶37

[2025:RJ-JP:15367] (4 of 4)

¶38

[SOSR-166/2024]

¶39

repay the amount so received along with the interest @ 6% per

¶40

annum.

¶41

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J

¶42

AARZOO ARORA /10

Ramesh Chand Bairwa Son of Parmaram Bairwa Owner Filling Station v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Chand Bairwa Son of Parmaram Bairwa Owner Filling Station v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramswaroop S/O Late Shri Ramkaran Ghasal Vs State of Rajasthan

Babli Alias Raman Son of Matoli Vs State of Rajasthan

Inder Ram Son of Chetram Vs State of Rajasthan

Panna Ram S/O Shri Maga Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Surendra Chaudhary Son of Shri Satyanarayan Vs State of Rajasthan

Akhtar Hussain Bhayyu S/O Abdul Khalik Vs State of Rajasthan