SUBRATODAS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision Petition Nos.216/2018, 217/2018, 218/2018, 219/2018, 220/2018, 221/2018, 222/2018, 223/2018, 224/2018, 225/2018, 226/2018, 227/2018, 228/2018 and 229/2018 have been preferred by the accused-petitioner whereas revision petition Nos.103/2018, 105/2018, 188/2018, 189/2018, 190/2018, 191/2018, 192/2018, 193/2018, 194/2018, 195/2018, 339/2018, 340/2018 and 341/2018 have been preferred by the complainants.

(2.) Accused Petitioner has preferred Revision Petitions aggrieved by the order dated 27.04.2017 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate No.11, Jaipur Metropolitan whereby the petitioner has been convicted for offences under Sec. 420, 406 and 120B of Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment for offence under Sec. 420 Penal Code with a fine of Rs. 50,000.00, on non-payment whereof petitioner has to undergo two months simple imprisonment. For offence under Sec. 406 Penal Code petitioner has been sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and for offence under Sec. 120B Penal Code to undergo six months simple imprisonment. Fine has been directed to be paid to the complainant and against the judgment and order dated 05.10.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan whereby appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected whereas complainant has preferred Revision Petitions for enhancement of sentence.

(3.) It is contended by the Counsel for the accused petitioner that there are serious infirmities in the impugned orders passed by the Courts below. The deposit as per the complaint was taken by the Company. There is no evidence to show that the amount was received by the petitioner. It is contended that Company has not been made as an accused in the case and the conviction of the petitioner was thus bad in law. It is contended that prior to the date of maturity, complainants have filed complaints as a result of which, the amount could not be refunded to the complainants. In the alternative it is contended that the petitioner has been sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment in all the cases and since all the cases were decided on the same date and pertain to same offence the sentence should be directed to run concurrently.