Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 377 (RAJ)

Vijay Kumar Vyas v. State of Rajasthan

2025-02-17

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2025
ORDER : (MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.) Application (I.A. No.1/2024) has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the present criminal revision petition and the same is allowed. Delay in filing the present criminal revision petition is condoned. 2. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 19.07.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Sriganganagar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellate court’) in Criminal Appeal No.179/2017 (C.I.S. No.131/217) by which the appellate court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment dated 26.04.2017 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (NI Act) Cases No.2, Sriganganagar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’) in Criminal Original Case No.39/2013 whereby, the learned trial court convicted the present petitioner for offence under Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced him to undergo One year’s SI along with fine of Rs.2,10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo Fifteen (15) days’ SI. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner took a loan of Rs.1,75,000/- from the complainant/respondent No.2 and in lieu thereof, the petitioner had given a cheque bearing No.200568 amounting to Rs.1,75,000/- of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch Sriganganagar to the complainant. On presentation, the said cheque was returned as dishonoured by the Bank due to insufficient funds in the account. The complainant served a legal notice upon the petitioner through his advocate and demanded the amount of cheque but the petitioner did not pay any amount to the complainant. 4. On the basis of the above complaint, the learned trial court took cognizance in the matter and ultimately framed charge for offence under Section 138 NI Act against the petitioner. The petitioner denied the charges and claimed for trial. During trial the complainant examined himself as witness and got exhibited certain documents. Thereafter statement of the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. 5. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide judgment and order dated 26.04.2017 convicted the accused- petitioner for offence under Section 138 of NI Act. 6. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 26.04.2017, passed by the learned trial court, an appeal was preferred before the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 19.07.2022. Hence, this revision. 7. 6. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 26.04.2017, passed by the learned trial court, an appeal was preferred before the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 19.07.2022. Hence, this revision. 7. At the threshold, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the accused petitioner has served total sentence and now he is serving default sentence of fifteen (15) days’, therefore, it is prayed that the default sentence awarded to the petitioner for the aforesaid offence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and 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. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments passed by both the courts below regarding conviction of the accused-petitioner. 10. It is not disputed that the accused petitioner was sentenced to a period of one year’s simple imprisonment, however, he served the sentence of one year and now he is serving default sentence, so also suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that he has remained behind the bars for more than one year, it will be just and proper if the default sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Section 138 of NI Act and affirmed by the appellate court is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 11. Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the petitioner’s conviction and sentence for offence under Section 138 of NI Act, the default 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 forthwith, if not required in any other case. 12. Application for suspension of sentence is disposed of accordingly. 13. Record of the case, if received, be sent back forthwith.