Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 893 (RAJ)

Kamlesh Joshi v. State of Rajasthan

2016-06-22

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2016
JUDGMENT : Vijay Bishnoi, J. This criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 4.12.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Jodhpur (for short 'the Appellate Court' hereinafter) in Cr. Appeal No. 112/2002, whereby the Appellate Court has dismissed the said appeal and affirmed the order dated 26.9.2000 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur (for short 'the Trial Court' hereinafter) in Cr. Original Case No. 101/1998, whereby the Trial Court has convicted an sentenced the accused-petitioner as under: Under Section 420/511 I.P.C.: Six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine, further to undergo one month’s simple imprisonment. Under Section 467 I.P.C.: One year's simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine further to undergo one month's simple imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Brief facts, necessary for disposal of this revision petition, are that on 13.11.1987, complainant Balveer Singh, the then Manager, Punjab National Bank, Mahatma Gandhi Hospital Road, Jodhpur submitted a written report to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Sardarpura, Jodhpur stating there that on 28.10.1987, a boy named Kamlesh came to the Bank for the purposes withdrawal of amount and submitted a Pass Book of Saving Account No. 24146 along with a withdrawal form, on which forged signature was done. It is also submitted that one Girdhar Singh, an employee of the Bank, enquired from Kamlesh, upon which, he told that the said Pass Book belongs to someone else and he was asked to withdraw the amount. The employee of the remembered that on 27.10.1987, that boy also withdrew a sum of Rs. 165/- from the Account No. 24185 and while disclosing his name as Kamlesh Gupta, pit his Signature on overleaf of the withdrawal form. On 12.11.1987, it was come to the notice that on 19.10.1987, the said withdrawal form of Rs. 165/- and Pass Book along with other things were stolen from Ranakpur Express and a report in that regard was lodged at Police Station, G.R.P., Jodhpur. 3. After receiving the aforesaid report, a case being No. 232/1987 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 I.P.C. at Police Station, Sardarpura, Jodhpur. 165/- and Pass Book along with other things were stolen from Ranakpur Express and a report in that regard was lodged at Police Station, G.R.P., Jodhpur. 3. After receiving the aforesaid report, a case being No. 232/1987 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 I.P.C. at Police Station, Sardarpura, Jodhpur. The investigation was commenced and after completion of investigation, the police had filed the charge-sheet against the accused-petitioner for the aforesaid offences before the Trial Court and the Trial Court framed the charges against him for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 467 I.P.C. The accused-petitioner denied the charges and claimed trial. 4. During the course of trial, the prosecution, in support of its case, had produced as many as 9 witnesses and also got exhibited 90 documents. 5. The Trial Court after analysing the evidence adduced before it, has convicted the accused-petitioner as aforesaid vide impugned judgment dated 26.9.2000. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court, however, the Appellate Court while affirming the judgment of the Trial Court, has dismissed the appeal of the accused-petitioner vide impugned judgment dated 4.12.2002. Hence, this revision petition. 6. At the outset, learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner has submitted that he does not want to challenge the conviction of the accused-petitioner passed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court. However, in respect of the sentence awarded by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that at the time of incident, the petitioner was a young boy of 17 years and in fact no money was withdrawn from the Bank and only an attempt to withdraw the money was made by the petitioner from the Bank. It is also argued that the, petitioner remained behind the bars for quite some time and now he is well settled in his life with his wife and children and therefore, the Court may take a lenient view in the matter and the sentence awarded by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court may be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 8. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 8. Having heard learned Counsel for the rival parties and perused the records of both the Courts below, this Court is of the opinion that so far as conviction of the accused-petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 467 I.P.C. is concerned, it is well founded and the Counsel for the petitioner has rightly not pressed this revision petition on merits. In view of this, it is not necessary to discuss the evidence at length. 9. So far as sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that looking to the fact that the incident is of November, 1987, the petitioner faced trial for more than 12 years, he remained behind the bars for quite some time and now he is settled in his life, a lenient view can be taken in this matter. 10. Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed. Conviction of the petitioner recorded by the Trial Court and affirmed by the appellant Court vide impugned judgments for the offences punishable under Sections 420/511 and 467 I.P.C., is maintained. However, the sentence awarded to the accused-petitioner is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. So far as fine awarded by the Trial Court is concerned, the accused-petitioner shall deposit the same before the Trial Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, in default whereof, he shall undergo one month's simple imprisonment. The accused-petitioner is on bail. His bail bonds stand cancelled. The impugned judgments are modified accordingly. Records of both the Courts below be sent forthwith.