Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Urn: Crlr / 2113U / 2008Dhanna Ram vs State on 19 May, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:23918]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1006/2008
Dhanna Ram S/o Bhooraram, resident of Sojat Road, Tehsil Sojat
City, District Pali
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumbhat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shri Ram Choudhary, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order Date of conclusion of arguments : 06/04/2026 Date on which order is reserved : 06/04/2026 Full order or operative part : Full order Date of pronouncement : 19/05/2026
1. The revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 01.03.2001 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sojat in Criminal Regular Case No.231/1996, whereby the petitioner was convicted for offences under Sections 408 and 420 IPC and sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- for offence under Section 408 IPC and six months' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/- for offence under Section 420 IPC alongwith default stipulations. The said judgment came to be partly modified by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sojat vide judgment dated 13.06.2008 passed in Criminal Appeal No.07/2001, whereby while maintaining the conviction recorded by the trial Court, the substantive (Uploaded on 20/05/2026 at 11:33:29 AM) (Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 08:16:13 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:23918] (2 of 7) [CRLR-1006/2008] sentence awarded to the petitioner was set aside and benefit of probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 was granted upon furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of like amount for maintaining peace and good behaviour for a period of one year. Being aggrieved to the extent conviction has been maintained and further seeking extension of benefit under Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, the present revision petition has been preferred.
2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the petitioner, while posted as Manager/Secretary of Gram Seva Sahakari Samiti, Rajola Kala, during the period from 15.01.1981 to 13.03.1981 collected various amounts from members and borrowers of the society towards repayment of dues and issued receipts in token thereof. During audit and scrutiny of the records of the society, it was found that though receipts had been issued for several deposits, corresponding entries were not fully reflected in the account books and an amount of Rs.12,096.50/- was found short. It was alleged that the petitioner dishonestly retained the said amount and thereby committed offences under Sections 408 and 420 IPC. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner. The prosecution examined several witnesses and produced documentary evidence including receipt books and society records. The defence of the petitioner was that the receipts did not bear his signatures, the amount had subsequently been deposited and no dishonest intention was involved.
(Uploaded on 20/05/2026 at 11:33:29 AM) (Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 08:16:13 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:23918] (3 of 7) [CRLR-1006/2008]
3. Upon appreciation of the evidence available on record, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sojat vide judgment dated 01.03.2001 passed in Criminal Regular Case No.231/1996 convicted and sentenced the petitioner for offences under Sections 408 and 420 IPC. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.07/2001 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sojat, who vide judgment dated 13.06.2008 affirmed the conviction but extended benefit of probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act by setting aside the substantive sentence awarded by the trial Court. Still aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition seeking reversal of conviction and extension of benefit under Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the Courts below failed to properly appreciate the evidence available on record. It was argued that the receipts in question did not bear signatures of the petitioner and there was no conclusive evidence establishing entrustment and dishonest misappropriation by him alone. It was further contended that the audit officer was not examined and the audit report was not duly proved in accordance with law. Learned counsel submitted that several prosecution witnesses did not fully support the prosecution case and admitted that amounts had ultimately been deposited. It was argued that mere delay in deposit would not constitute criminal breach of trust or cheating. Learned counsel further submitted that the occurrence pertains to the year 1981 and the petitioner has faced criminal proceedings for several decades. The petitioner was about (Uploaded on 20/05/2026 at 11:33:29 AM) (Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 08:16:13 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:23918] (4 of 7) [CRLR-1006/2008] 45 years of age in the year 1998 and is presently of advanced age. It was urged that once the appellate Court itself found the petitioner entitled to benefit under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, the petitioner also deserves extension of benefit under Section 12 of the said Act.
5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the revision petition and submitted that both the Courts below have concurrently appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and recorded well reasoned findings of conviction. It was argued that the petitioner was entrusted with public/cooperative funds while holding the post of Manager of the society and the evidence clearly established that amounts collected from members were not deposited in the accounts of the society. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that subsequent deposit of amount would not obliterate the offence already committed. It was further contended that offences involving breach of trust in relation to cooperative/public funds are serious in nature and no interference is warranted in the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
7. Upon consideration of the entire material, this Court is not persuaded to interfere with the concurrent findings of conviction recorded by the Courts below. The revisional jurisdiction of this Court is limited and unless the findings recorded suffer from manifest illegality, perversity or complete misreading of evidence, re-appreciation of evidence is ordinarily not warranted.
(Uploaded on 20/05/2026 at 11:33:29 AM) (Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 08:16:13 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:23918] (5 of 7) [CRLR-1006/2008]
8. The evidence available on record indicates that the petitioner was functioning as Manager of the concerned cooperative society during the relevant period. The prosecution produced evidence to show that amounts were collected from members and receipts were issued in respect thereof, however, corresponding entries/deposits were not fully reflected in the accounts of the society. The shortage amount was specifically quantified during inquiry and audit. The trial Court has extensively considered the oral and documentary evidence and has returned findings that entrustment and dishonest retention stood established. The appellate Court independently re-appreciated the material and affirmed the findings of guilt. Merely because another possible view may exist would not justify interference in revisional jurisdiction.
9. The contentions regarding non-examination of the audit officer, absence of signatures on some receipts and subsequent deposit of amount were all considered by the Courts below and rejected upon appreciation of evidence. This Court does not find any such perversity or jurisdictional error warranting reversal of the concurrent findings of conviction. Consequently, the conviction of the petitioner for offences under Sections 408 and 420 IPC as recorded by the Courts below deserves to be maintained.
10. So far as sentence is concerned, the appellate Court has already extended benefit of probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act while maintaining the conviction. The occurrence in the present matter pertains to the year 1981. The (Uploaded on 20/05/2026 at 11:33:29 AM) (Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 08:16:13 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:23918] (6 of 7) [CRLR-1006/2008] petitioner has faced criminal proceedings for more than four decades. The amount involved was comparatively limited and the record indicates that the amount had subsequently been deposited. The petitioner does not appear to be a previous convict and no material has been placed before this Court indicating involvement in any subsequent criminal activity. The petitioner is presently of advanced age and the prolonged pendency of criminal proceedings itself has operated as substantial hardship and punishment.
11. This Court is conscious that the offence relates to breach of trust involving cooperative society funds and ordinarily such offences are required to be viewed seriously. At the same time, while exercising jurisdiction under the Probation of Offenders Act, the Court is also required to balance the reformative object underlying the legislation and the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case.
12. In the considered opinion of this Court, once the appellate Court itself found the petitioner entitled to benefit under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, the facts of the present case also justify extension of benefit under Section 12 of the said Act. The extraordinary passage of time since the occurrence, the age of the petitioner, absence of criminal antecedents and the fact that the petitioner has already undergone the ordeal of criminal litigation for decades constitute sufficient grounds for extending such benefit.
(Uploaded on 20/05/2026 at 11:33:29 AM) (Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 08:16:13 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:23918] (7 of 7) [CRLR-1006/2008]
13. Accordingly, the revision petition is partly allowed. The conviction of the petitioner for offences under Sections 408 and 420 IPC as recorded by the learned trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court is maintained. The order granting benefit of probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act is also maintained. Additionally, the petitioner is extended benefit under Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
14. Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J Pramod/-
(Uploaded on 20/05/2026 at 11:33:29 AM) (Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 08:16:13 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)