Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 775 (RAJ)

Devendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, Through PP

2019-03-07

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 23.06.2017 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh (hereinafter referred to as the appellate court) by which the appellate court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment dated 12.01.2016 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh (hereinafter referred to as the trial court) whereby, the learned trial court convicted the present petitioner for offence under Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment and also ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation to the respondent No. 2-complainant. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of NI Act before the Addl. Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh against the petitioner alleging therein that on being demanded by the petitioner for loan of his business, the complainant gave Rs. 1,00,000/- to him in the presence of one Hajari. In lieu of the said amount, the petitioner issued a cheque No. 200511. On presentation, the said cheque was dishonoured by the Bank. The complainant served a legal notice dated 03.04.2013 upon the petitioner through his Advocate. 3. The learned court below took cognizance in the matter and ultimately framed charge for offence under Section 138 NI Act against the petitioner. The petitioner denied the charge and claimed for trial. During trial the complainant got himself examined as PW-1 and examined one witness Hazari Ram as PW-2 and got exhibited certain documents. Thereafter statement of the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. In defence, the petitioner got himself examined as DW-1 and examined one witness Ranjeet Singh as DW-2 and exhibited one document. 4. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide judgment and order dated 12.01.2016 convicted the accused-petitioner for offence under Section 138 of NI Act. 5. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 12.01.2016, passed by the learned trial court, an appeal was preferred before the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 23.06.2017. 6. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide judgment and order dated 12.01.2016 convicted the accused-petitioner for offence under Section 138 of NI Act. 5. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 12.01.2016, passed by the learned trial court, an appeal was preferred before the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 23.06.2017. 6. At the threshold, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the accused petitioner is behind the bars since 15.10.2018 and out of total sentence, the petitioner has served about 5 months of sentence, therefore, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner for the aforesaid offence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 7. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned PP submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused petitioner nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments passed by both the courts below regarding conviction of the accused- petitioner. 9. It is not disputed that the accused petitioner was sentenced to a period of six months simple imprisonment, however, the petitioner has so far undergone a period of about 5 months in custody out of six months of total sentence, so also suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the petitioner has remained behind the bars for about 5 months now, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Section 138 of NI Act is reduced from six months to the period already undergone by the petitioner. 10. Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the petitioners conviction for offence under Section 138 of NI Act, the sentence awarded to him is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by him. So far as the compensation amount is concerned, the respondent No. 2-complainant shall be free to initiate proceedings for recovery of the compensation amount before the trial court. The accused- petitioner is in custody and shall be released, if not required in any other case.