Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 725 (RAJ)

Upendra Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2006-03-02

VINEET KOTHARI

body2006
Judgment Dr. Vineet Kothari, J.-This revision petition is directed against the appellate Judgment dated 31.01.1995 passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge, SC/ST Court, Jaipur whereby he dismissed the Appeal No. 54/1995 filed by the petitioner upholding the Judgment dated 110.1991 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, No. 6 Jaipur City, Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 655/1979 whereby the accused petitioner was convicted for offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471, IPC and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment for all offences and a fine of Rs. 3,000/-each. In default of payment of fine, he has to undergo one month simple imprisonment for each. However, the appellate Court while upholding the conviction reduced the period of sentence from three years to one year for each offence and also reduced the amount of fine from Rs. 1,000/-each to Rs. 500/-each. In default of payment of fine, he will further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment for each offence. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The accused petitioner was working as Upper Division Clerk in the University of Rajasthan, Jaipur. One Smt. Amarjeet Kaur, Lecturer in Gangangar Girls College was deputed as an Examiner to check the answer book of the students in the year 1975 by the University of Rajasthan, Jaipur and the fee for checking of answer books was sent by the University to her by a Cheque No. C.D./O/159654 dated 22.09.1975 amounting to Rs. 944/82 paise drawn on Bank of Rajasthan, Bapu Nagar but the said cheque was not received by Smt. Amarjeet Kaur. The case of the prosecution is that the accused endorsed the said cheque in favour of one M/s. Parwa Brothers, and accordingly the said cheque was credited in favour of one M/s. Parwa Brothers, who in turn issue a bearer cheque of Rs. 940/-in favour of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur vide Cheque No. 320930 dated 14.01.1976 drawn on the Allahabad Bank, SMS High Way, Jaipur on 22.01.1976 and money of the said bearer cheque was withdrawn by the accused petitioner by signing on the back of the said bearer cheque as A.K. Singh. The accused petitioner was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences and after trial, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner as aforesaid. 3. The accused petitioner was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences and after trial, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner as aforesaid. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt and the report of hand writing expert also shows that the petitioner is not the person who withdrew the said amount from the Bank, therefore, the petitioner deserves to be acquitted of the said offences. In the alternative, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that if this Court comes to the conclusion that the conviction of the petitioner cannot be set-aside then a lenient view should be taken to reduce the sentence awarded by the trial Court to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the accused petitioner in view of the fact that he has already been dismissed from service, he is in advance age and the couple is issue-less. 4. Be that as it may, the learned Counsel for the State (P.P.) submits that there is no occasion to interfere with the concurrent finding recorded by the two Courts below and it is a fit case for upholding the conviction and no lenient view should be taken in the matter as the accused petitioner has clearly indulged in cheating and mis-appropriating the money in question. 5. Having gone through the impugned Judgment s and considering the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and also perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the view, that there is no justification for upsetting the order of conviction of the trial Court and maintained by the appellate Court in the present case. The two Courts below have rightly arrived at a conclusion of guilty of the accused petitioner and in convicting the accused petitioner for committing the aforesaid offences. However, on the period of sentence, this Court finds that the accused petitioner has remained in jail for about seven days in relation to the said offences and, therefore, the period of sentence is reduced to the period of confinement already suffered by him. The ends of justice would met if the amount of fine i.e., Rs. 500/-for each offence is enhanced in the facts and circumstance of the case to Rs. 1,500/-for each offence. The additional amount of fine i.e., Rs. The ends of justice would met if the amount of fine i.e., Rs. 500/-for each offence is enhanced in the facts and circumstance of the case to Rs. 1,500/-for each offence. The additional amount of fine i.e., Rs. 3,000/-for all the three offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471, IPC shall be deposited by the accused petitioner in trial Court within a period of three months from today, failing which the accused petitioner shall undergo one month simple imprisonment for each offence. 6. With the above modification in the impugned Judgment of the two Courts below, the present revision petition is disposed of .