Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1304 (RAJ)

Tulsi Oil Industries v. State of Rajasthan

2015-07-15

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2015
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the judgment/order dated 5.7.2010 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge No. 3, Ajmer in Cr. Appeal No. 4/2007, whereby he partly allowed the appeal filed by the petitioners and while maintaining the conviction of the petitioners for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act, as awarded by the trial court vide judgment dated 14.9.2005 passed in Cr. Case No. 66/2001, reduced his sentence from 6 months' SI to 1 month's SI with a fine of Rs. 2000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month's SI. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant filed a Cr. complaint against the accused person(s) under Section 138 of NI Act in the Court of Magistrate. The trial court took cognizance of offence u/S. 138 of NI Act and summoned the accused person(s). The substance of accusation was read over to the accused person(s), who denied for the same the claimed for trial. From the complainant side evidence was produced. Thereafter the statement of the accused person(s) were recorded u/S. 313 Cr.PC. After conclusion of trial, the learned Magistrate vide judgment and order dated 14.9.2005 convicted for the accused person(s) for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act sentenced him/them to undergo 6 months' SI with a fine of Rs. 2000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month's SI. Against the said judgment, the accused person(s) filed by the appeal, but the appellate court vide judgment and order dated 5.7.2010 partly allowed the appeal and while maintaining the conviction of the accused person(s) modified the sentence, as indicated here-in-above. 3. Against the said judgment, this revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the cheque amount is only Rs. 10,000/- and on this count, the petitioner has remained in custody for about 6 days. He has further contended that there was a civil dispute pending between the parties, in which an amount of Rs. 10,000/- has been decreed by the Civil Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the cheque amount is only Rs. 10,000/- and on this count, the petitioner has remained in custody for about 6 days. He has further contended that there was a civil dispute pending between the parties, in which an amount of Rs. 10,000/- has been decreed by the Civil Court. In order to purchase the peace in the mind, he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgments of the court below, but he is only requesting to this court looking to the fact that amount is very petty amount and the petitioner has already been punished; the alleged occurrence took place in the year 1997 i.e. 18 years ago from today; the petitioner is facing the trial since the last 18 years; when the occurrence took place, the petitioner was young and now the petitioner is old aged person; the petitioner is married person and having the children of marriageable age; he is not the previously convicted person; it is the first offence of his life, hence either he should be given the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act or Section 360 Cr.P.C.; and if not; then he should be released for the period already undergone by him in confinement, as indicated here-in-above. 5. Learned PP assisted by counsel for the respondent No. 2 has opposed the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 7. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the arguments of learned counsel for the parties. I do not think it proper to release the accused petitioner on probation, but in my view, ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him in confinement, as indicated here-in-above. Hence, this revision petition is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The revision petition filed by the petitioner(s) is partly allowed; (ii) His conviction is maintained; (iii) His sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him in confinement, as indicated above. (iv) The sentence of the accused petitioner (s) was suspended and he is on bail. He need not to surrender and his bail bonds stand cancelled. 8. (iv) The sentence of the accused petitioner (s) was suspended and he is on bail. He need not to surrender and his bail bonds stand cancelled. 8. Impugned judgments stand modified, as indicated hereinabove.