Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1548 (RAJ)

Laxmilal v. Rajendra Singh Ranawat

2023-08-16

FARJAND ALI

body2023
ORDER : Farjand Ali, J. The legality, correction and perversity of judgment of conviction dated 05.05.2016 passed by Judicial Magistrate (NI Act, Cases), No.2 Udaipur, in Criminal Regular Case NO. 1120/2013 as well as judgment dated 05.09.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Act, Cases), Udaipur in Criminal Apeal NO.35/2017 has been challenged by way of filing the instant revision petition. 2. Bereft of elaborated details, subsequently stated the facts of the case are that a complaint was submitted on behalf of the respondent alleging interalia that a sum of Rs.40,000/- was debted out by him to the petitioner and lieu thereof, the cheque was handed over to the complainant. When the cheque was presented before the concerned Bank, the same got dishonored due to insufficiency of amount. Whereafter, notice was given and when the payment was not made, the complainant filed criminal complaint before the trial Court. 3. After fulfleged trial and making appreciation of the evidence, the trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to suffer three (3) months of simple imprisonment along with compensation to the tune of Rs.80,000/-. 4. The appeal filed against the order has been dismissed and both these judgments are under assail before this Court. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the impugned judgments. 6. After carefully scanning of the fact brought on record, this Court of the considered view that the learned trial Court Judge as well as Court of appeal has not erred in reaching the conclusion of guilt and therefore, the judgment of conviction does not warrant interference by this Court at this stage. 7. While hearing on the point of sentence, it apprised to this Court that the cheque was amounting of Rs.40,000 and Rs.80,000 has been given by the petitioner to the complainant. The said fact has not rebutted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The petitioner is facing the trial since 2013 and now 10 years have lapsed. He submitted that the petitioner is not having sufficient earning and has a family behind him, who are dependent on him. The said fact has not rebutted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The petitioner is facing the trial since 2013 and now 10 years have lapsed. He submitted that the petitioner is not having sufficient earning and has a family behind him, who are dependent on him. Thus, looking to the social and economic background of the petitioner, the object of NI Act and the fact that 10 years have lapsed and amount of compensation has been paid, I deem it just proper that the sentence passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone accordingly. 8. The instant revision petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of. The amount paid by the petitioner shall, if not received, be disbursed in favour of the complainant. The order of sentence and affirmation of the same by the appellate Court is set aside and it is converted to the period already undergone. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are discharged.