Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2074 (RAJ)

Gaja Nand v. State

2022-07-20

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2022
JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - None appears for the appellant despite specific note in the cause-list that old matters prior to 2000 shall not be adjourned. 2. Mr. Suresh Khadav, Advocate is appointed as Amicus Curiae to argue the matter on behalf of the accused-appellant under the free legal aid scheme. His remuneration shall be paid by the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority as per the rules. 3. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1995 and the present criminal revision has been pending since the year 1999. 4. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 07.12.1999 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Appeal No. 74/99, whereby the judgment dated 27.05.1999 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Case No. 295/98, convicting the revisionist-petitioner was upheld. The petitioner was convicted for the offences under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and was sentenced to undergo three months' S.I. and a fine of Rs. 30,000/-, in default of payment of which, he was ordered to undergo further fifteen days' S.I. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner further submits that the sentence so awarded to the revisionist-petitioner was suspended by this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 27.01.2000 passed in S.B. Criminal Bail Application (SOS) No. 226/1999. 6. On seeing the order dated 27.01.2000, it reflects that the demand draft of 30,000/- has already been released in favour of the complainant through the learned Court below. The order dated 27.01.2000 passed by this Court reads as follows:- "Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is depositing a draft of Rs. 30,000/- in the name of complainant Deepak Gupta in the Court. This draft may be transmitted to the trial court to be handed over to the complainant on furnishing security for the amount in question and undertaking to the effect that in case the accused succeeds in this case, he will return the amount with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Heard. Perused the impugned judgment and record. Admit. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, I feel that it will be just and proper to suspend the sentence of the appellant(s). Heard. Perused the impugned judgment and record. Admit. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, I feel that it will be just and proper to suspend the sentence of the appellant(s). Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is ordered that the sentence passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar by his order of the judgment dated 07.12.1999 against the appellant(s) Gaja Nand S/o. Manoharlal shall remain suspended till the final disposal of aforesaid criminal appeal provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- alongwith two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this Court on 22.03.2000 and whenever ordered to do so with the incorporation in the bond that as and when he will shift his place of residence, he will intimate to this Court and his lawyer about his new place of residence." 7. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner, thus, makes a limited submission that without making any interference on merits/conviction, the sentence awarded to the present revisionist-petitioner may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by him. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same. 9. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in, Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das v. State of W.B. (1998) 9 SCC 678 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:- Alister Anthony Pareira (Supra) "There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances." Haripada Das (Supra) "...considering the fact that the respondent had already undergone detention for some period and the case is pending for a pretty long time for which he had suffered both financial hardship and mental agony and also considering the fact that he had been released on bail as far back as on 17-1-1986, we feel that the ends of justice will be met in the facts of the case if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone..." 10. In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, the present petition is partly allowed. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly. 11. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned below be sent back forthwith.