[2025:RJ-JP:31707] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 597/2008 Anil Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Gulab Chand Sharma, R/o Ashok Nagar, Niwaru Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Bhawani Shankar Sharma S/o Shri Rameshwar Lal Sharma, C/o Shivam Syanthetics, Shop No.2, Diggi Katla, Johri Bajar, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. V.S. Chouhan, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, Dy.GA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 13/08/2025 1. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 18.06.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned Appellate Court') in Criminal Appeal No.02/2008, whereby learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and order dated 21.07.2007 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) and Judicial Magistrate No.22, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'learned trial Court') in Criminal Case No.807/2003, whereby, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the present petitioner as under:- [2025:RJ-JP:31707] (2 of 4) [CRLR-597/2008] Sr. No. Name of Accused- Petitioner Conviction under Section Fine Sentence 1. Anil Kumar Sharma 138 of N.I. Act Rs.250/- and Rs.6,000/- as compensation to the complainant 1 month S.I. and in default 7 days' additional S.I. 2. As per brief facts of the case, petitioner issued a cheque bearing No.762323 dated 10.12.2000 against the goods purchased by him from the complainant for a sum of Rs.4,900/- and the said cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds, for which the petitioner was informed orally by the complainant and petitioner asked him to resubmit the cheque before the Bank. Thereafter, the complainant resubmitted the cheque and the same was again dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. Thus, the complainant filed a complaint against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the learned trial Court. During the course of trial, complainant examined himself in the witness box and also exhibited some documents. The petitioner was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. After completion of the trial, learned trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 21.07.2007, convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced as aforesaid. 3. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Court, which dismissed the Criminal Appeal No.02/2008 filed by the petitioner- Anil Kumar Sharma vide judgment dated 18.06.2008, hence [2025:RJ-JP:31707] (3 of 4) [CRLR-597/2008] upheld the conviction and sentence of the trial. Therefore, the present revision petition. 4. At the threshold, learned counsel for the petitioner do not want to challenge the findings of the conviction for the aforesaid offence against the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the occurrence relates back to the year 2000 and the petitioner has served the sentence of four days, out of total sentence of one month. Learned counsel also submits that in compliance of order dated 25.06.2008 passed by Revisional Court, the accused- petitioner deposited the cheque amount along with the interest via depositing Rs.2,250/- on 18.08.2007 and Rs.6,000/- on 05.07.2008 in the trial Court. Learned counsel prays that while maintaining the conviction, the sentence awarded to the petitioner be suspended to the extent of period of incarcenation already undergone by him. 5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. It is undisputed fact that the occurrence had taken place in the year 2000; learned trial Court decided the matter on 21.07.2007; learned Appellate Court decided the appeal vide order dated 18.06.2008 and this revision petition is pending for the last 17 years, therefore, the petitioner suffered the agony of trial, appeal and revision for the last more than 17 years. Therefore, looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the petitioner has remained in [2025:RJ-JP:31707] (4 of 4) [CRLR-597/2008] custody for 4 days, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court and confirmed by the learned Appellate Court be reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioner. 8. Considering the limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner has suffered the agony and trauma of trial, appeal and this petition for the last about 22 years and the present petition is pending since 2007. 9. Accordingly, the present petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act, the sentence awarded to him is ordered to be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 10. Pending applications, (if any) also stand disposed of accordingly. 11. Record of the trial Court be sent back. 12. A copy of this order be sent to learned trial Court for compliance. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J Mohita /15