Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 116 (RAJ)

Mahendra v. State of Rajasthan

2019-01-09

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. Instant Criminal Revision Petition has been filed against the judgment dated 08.03.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh in Criminal Appeal No. 63/2017, by which the appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and affirmed the judgment & Order dated 26.04.2017 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No. 603/2013, by which the trial court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Sections 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo 1 year simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,60,000/-; and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 months additional simple imprisonment. 2. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not want to challenge his conviction for the offence noticed above. However, he has confined his arguments only to the point of quantum of sentence and submits that the petitioner is inside the jail since 08.03.2018 and he has already suffered major portion of the sentence awarded to him i.e. 10 months imprisonment out of 1 year imprisonment and therefore, learned counsel submits that ends of justice would meet if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent argued that the petitioner has not paid any amount in respect of the cheque. The sentence awarded by the courts below cannot be said to be disproportionate, on the contrary, the same is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. He submit that revision petition may be dismissed. 4. I have considered the arguments and gone through the record of the case. 5. The petitioner is behind the bars since 08.03.2018. He has already undergone more than 10 months imprisonment out of total sentence of 1 year imprisonment so also suffered mental agony of the protracted trial for a considerable time. In my view, the ends of justice would be met if the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial court is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioner. However, so far as fine part is concerned, the respondent is free to move the application before the trial court in this regard. 6. Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed. However, so far as fine part is concerned, the respondent is free to move the application before the trial court in this regard. 6. Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed. The conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is maintained. However, the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded by the courts below to the petitioner is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. The petitioner is in jail, he be released forthwith if not required in any other case. 7. Record of the trial court be sent back immediately.