[2025:RJ-JP:50433] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 488/2025 1. Neelesh Rawat Son Of Shri Sitaram Ji Rawat, Proprietor Rawat Enterprises, National Kirana Store, Factory Area Road, Near The Police Station Jhotwara, Jhotwara Jaipur. 2. Rawat Enterprises, Proprietor Neelesh Rawat, National Kirana Store, Factory Area Road, Near The Police Station Jhotwara, Jhotwara, Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Public Prosecutor 2. Smt. Leela Bagrecha Wife Of Late Shri Lakhpat Raj Bagrecha, Through Its Power Of Attorney Shri Maneesh Mehta, Son Of Late Shri Lakhpat Raj Bagrecha Resident Of 34, Bank Colony Mahesh Nagar Extension B, Gopalpura Bypass, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Anima Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 15/12/2025 1. The present criminal revision petition has been filed by the accused-petitioner, challenging the order dated 06.02.2024 passed by the Additional Session Judge, No.6, Jaipur Metropolitan First, whereby the appeal filed against the judgment dated 10.05.2023 passed by the Court of Pilot Project, Special Metropolitan Judicial Magistrate, (N.I. Act Cases), Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Jaipur has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and sentence has been confirmed. [2025:RJ-JP:50433] (2 of 2) [CRLR-488/2025] 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that vide judgment dated 10.05.2023 after convicting the petitioner for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, sentence of simple imprisonment of two years as well as monetary fine was imposed upon the petitioner and in case the fine is not deposited by him, then he was required to undergo additional sentence of one month. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned judgment was delivered on 10.05.2023 and since then the petitioner has undergone custody of more than two years and six months till this date and on account of already facing the rigor of the impugned judgment, no cause of action for pursuing the present revision petition survives; hence the same has become infructuous. 4. Accordingly, the instant revision petition is dismissed as having been rendered infructuous. 5. Since, there are other cases/ convictions against the petitioner for which the petitioner is still under custody, therefore, there is no requirement to issue directions for releasing the petitioner from jail. 6. Ordered accordingly. 7. Record of the court below be sent back. 8. Any other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J SOURAV /25