DEVI LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 26.11.2010 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Bundi in Cr. Appeal No. 67/2009, whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 15.5.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bundi in Cr. Case No. 137/2002, by which the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced to undergo 6 months' SI and petitioner was also directed to pay a sum of, Rs. 30,000/ - to the complainant -respondent as compensation. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the accused petitioner in the Court of judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bundi alleging therein that to fulfill his personal necessity, the accused petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs. 20,000/ - from the complainant and as the accused petitioner was known to the complainant and as the accused petitioner was known to the complainant, the complainant gave such amount on the assurance of petitioner that he will return the said amount after 8 days. It was further alleged that since the petitioner had not repaid the said amount, then the complainant went at the shop of the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner gave a cheque to the complainant, which was dishonoured on being presented the same in the bank. Thereafter the complainant filed a complaint against the petitioner. The trial Court took cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and the case was registered. The trial Court read over the substance of charge to the accused petitioner, who denied for the same and claimed for trial. The prosecution produced his witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter the statement of accused petitioner were recorded under Section 313 CrPC. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act, vide judgment dated 15.5.2009, as indicated above. Against the said judgment, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate Court. The appellate court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment passed by the trial court vide judgment dated 26.11.2010. Hence, this revision petition has been filed before this Court.

(2.) WITHOUT going into the merits of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgments of the courts below; but he is only requesting to this Court that looking to the fact that the, cheque amount was of Rs. 20,000/ - out of which the accused petitioner has paid Rs. 15,000/ - to the complainant and the sentence awarded to the petitioner is to undergo '6 months' SI, out o which he has served the sentence of 3 months; the matter pertains to the year 2001 which is about 14 years ago from today approximately, it is the first offence of his life; the petitioner belongs to a respectable family, having a large family dependent upon him; he is not the habitual offender; hence he should be released for the period already undergone by him in confinement, as indicated here -in -above.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, in my view, ends of justice would be met if the sentence awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him in confinement, as indicated here -in -above. Hence, this revision petition is disposed of with the following directions: