[2025:RJ-JD:4786] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 130/2024 Prakash Lodha S/o Sh. Pyar Lodha, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Lalji Ka Khera, Tehsil And Dist. Chittorgarh. (At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail Udaipur). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Deepa W/o Nand Lal Lodha, R/o Laxmipura (Barada), Tehsil And Dist. Chittorgarh. 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.S. Gaur For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ansarul Hak Mansuri, for respondent No.1 Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP with Mr. Omprakash Choudhary HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG Order 24/01/2025 Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 17.08.2021 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.2, Chittorgarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellate court’) by which the appellate court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment dated 31.03.2016 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (NI Act Cases) Chittorgarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’) whereby, the learned trial court convicted the present petitioner for offence under Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced him to undergo two years’ SI along with fine of Rs.5,50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo four months’ SI. [2025:RJ-JD:4786] (2 of 4) [CRLR-130/2024] Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner took a loan of Rs.5,21,000/- from the complainant/respondent No.1 and in lieu thereof, the petitioner had given a cheque bearing No.608476 of Indian Bank, Branch Chittorgarh to the complainant. On presentation, the said cheque was returned as dishonoured by the Bank. 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. 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 herself as witness and got exhibited certain documents. Thereafter statement of the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. In defence, Prakash examined himself as DW-1. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide judgment and order dated 31.03.2016 convicted the accused- petitioner for offence under Section 138 of NI Act. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 31.03.2016, passed by the learned trial court, an appeal was preferred before the learned appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 17.08.2021. Hence, this revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suspension of sentence application of the petitioner has already allowed by this Court vide order dated 16.02.2024. At the threshold, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does [2025:RJ-JD:4786] (3 of 4) [CRLR-130/2024] not challenge the finding of conviction but since the accused petitioner has served about one years, six months and sixteen days of sentence, out of total sentence of two years, therefore, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the petitioner for the aforesaid offence may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 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. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments passed by both the courts below regarding conviction of the accused-petitioner. It is not disputed that the accused petitioner was sentenced to a period of two years’ simple imprisonment, however, the petitioner has so far undergone a period of one year, six months and sixteen days in custody, out of two years of total 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 about one year, six months and sixteen days, it will be just and proper if the 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. Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. While maintaining the petitioner’s conviction for offence under Section 138 of NI Act, the sentence awarded to him is hereby reduced to [2025:RJ-JD:4786] (4 of 4) [CRLR-130/2024] the period already undergone by him. The sentence of one month additional imprisonment awarded in default of payment of fine/compensation is also waived. So far as the compensation amount is concerned, the respondent No.1-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. Application for suspension of sentence is already decided. Record of the case be sent back forthwith. (MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 139-Ishan/-