Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2221 (RAJ)

Rafiq Hussain v. Tirupati Finance Co.

2022-08-05

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2022
ORDER 1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition claiming the following reliefs :- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this criminal revision petition may kindly be allowed and the conviction and sentenced awarded by the learned chief Judicial Magistrate Sirohi vide impugned judgment dated 07.10.2015 in criminal regular case no.348/2012 which has been affirmed by the learned Special Judge, ST/CT cases Sirohi vide judgment dated 27.06.2019 in criminal appeal no.71/2018 (16/2016) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the revision petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed and the petitioner may kindly be acquitted." 2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 27.06.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Cases, Sirohi in Criminal Appeal no. 71/2018 (16/2016) whereby the judgment dated 07.10.2015 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi in Criminal Case No.348/2012 convicting the revisionist-petitioner was upheld. The petitioner was convicted for the offences under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and were sentenced to undergo six months S.I. and a fine of Rs.35,000/- in default of payment of which, they were ordered to undergo further two months S.I. 3. There are two cases against the present petitioner and petitioner has already undergone six months custody in each cases. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that sentence awarded to the present revisionist-petitioner may be substituted with the period of sentence already undergone by him. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner however, 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. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the same. 6. This Court is conscious of the judgments rendered in, Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. 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. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. 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" 7. In light of the limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and looking into the fact that the petitioner has already undergone the sentence of about 12 months, (six months in each of the cases), which is the main sentence, and keeping in mind the aforementioned precedent laws, the present petition is partly allowed. Accordingly, though the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Section 138 of N.I. Act is maintained, but looking to the fact that he is already undergone the main sentence awarded to him, there is no requirement to pass any order regarding his sentence. However, as regards payment of fine is concerned, since the petitioner has shown his incapacity to pay the same, the said condition as imposed by learned court below is dispensed with. 8. The petitioner is in jail in pursuance of the impugned order dated 07.10.2015 passed by learned Court below; he be released forthwith. 9. Accordingly, all pending applications, if any, are disposed of.