[2025:RJ-JP:38025] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1570/2024 Chitarmal Nayak S/o Shri Sunda Ram, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Plot No. 51, Ruch Vihar Colony Murlipura Jaipur (At Central Jail Jaipur) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Shri Maliram Sharma S/o Late Shri Shivdatt Shastri, R/o House No. 672, Gangauri Bajar Jaipur Rajasthan 2. State of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor Jaipur Mahanagar ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yash Pal Garg, Advocate & Mr. Dinesh Gard, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Asgar Khan, Advocate Mr. Amit Gupta, Public Prosecutor HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order 17/09/2025 : Instant revision petition has been filed on behalf of accused/ petitioner under Section 438 & 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 being aggrieved by judgment dt.02.09.2024 passed by Court of ld. Special Judge (Sati Niwaran Cases) Rajasthan & Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, in Criminal Appeal No.101/2023, whereby the appeal filed by petitioner has been dismissed & the judgment dt.26.10.2023 passed by Court of ld. Special Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act) No.13, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, in Criminal Case No.3722/2021 whereby the petitioner has been convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act & sentenced to undergo one year years simple imprisonment with compensation of Rs.6,50,000/- to be paid to the complainant and in default thereof to further undergo two months simple imprisonment, has been affirmed. [2025:RJ-JP:38025] (2 of 3) [CRLR-1570/2024] Submissions of learned counsel appearing for the accused- petitioner are that the sentence, so awarded to the petitioner was, however, suspended by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dt.10.10.2024 with the condition that the entire amount of cheque is required to be deposited, provided the amount already deposited by the petitioner be deducted from the amount of cheque required to be deposited in the name of the complainant before the ld. Trial Court. The petitioner is a poor person & there is no other earning member in the family, as such he is not in a position to fully comply with the Condition mentioned in Para 7 of the aforesaid order. Therefore, the petitioner could not be released from the jail. He is continuing in jail since 02.09.2024 and, thus, he has completed more than one year & 15-days of actual sentence. Further submission is that ld. Counsel shall not assail the conviction of the petitioner and confines his arguments to the alternative prayer of reduction of sentence in default of payment of compensation awarded by ld. trial Court. Hence, this petition be partly allowed & the sentence awarded to petitioner in default of payment of compensation be reduced and the petitioner may be released. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant, have submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgments whatsoever and, therefore, the same do not call for any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court. However, they did not seriously dispute the submission regarding reduction of sentence. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties at length. Perused the impugned judgments and the entire record of the case. Since the present revision petition against conviction is not pressed and after perusing the material nothing is noticed which [2025:RJ-JP:38025] (3 of 3) [CRLR-1570/2024] requires interference in the finding of guilt reached by ld. Trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court, this Court does not wish to interfere in the judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is maintained. So far as the question of quantum of sentence is concerned, it is pertinent to note here that in the present case, incident pertains to the year 2021. The petitioner has already suffered the agony of protracted litigation, spanning over a period around 4 years and has been in the corridors of the Court for this prolonged period. Thus, considering the facts & circumstances of the case, status of the petitioner in the society and the fact that he faced financial hardship and he had to go through mental agony, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met, if sentence imposed upon the petitioner with regard to default of payment of compensation be reduced. Looking to the facts & circumstances of the present case & considering the submissions made at bar, more particularly the petitioner is in custody since long, the revision petition is partly allowed, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the alleged offence. However, the substantive sentence of imprisonment with regard to default of payment of compensation awarded to the petitioner is reduced from two months to 15-days. The petitioner has already served out the complete sentence of one-year as well as the sentence of 15-days in default of payment of compensation. Therefore, the petitioner shall be released from the prison forthwith, if not required in any other case. Record be sent to the trial Court. (VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J. ASHOK