Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Manoj Kumar Son Of Shri Rudmal vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:36761) on 30 August, 2024
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2024:RJ-JP:36761]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 672/2023
Manoj Kumar Son Of Shri Rudmal, Resident Of Plot No. 2,
Shankar Nagar-B Opp. No. 1 V.k.i. Area, Sikar Road, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
2. Complainant: Sagar Mal Choudhary S/o Late Shri Bansidhar
Choudhary R/o Plot no.23, 24, Shankar-B,V.K.I. Area, opposite
Road no.1, Murlipura, Jaipur.
----Respondent
Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 674/2023 Manoj Kumar S/o Shri Rudmal, Resident Of Plot No. 2, Shankar Nagar-B Opp. No. 1 V.k.i. Area, Sikar Road, Jaipur.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
2. Complainant: Sagar Mal Choudhary S/o Late Shri Bansidhar Choudhary R/o Plot no.23, 24, Shankar-B,V.K.I. Area, opposite Road no.1, Murlipura, Jaipur.
----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yashkumar Tailor Mr. K.C. Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jaiprakash Tiwari, Dy.G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) Order 30/08/2024
1. The instant applications have been preferred on behalf of the applicant-Sagarmal Choudhary who happens to be complainant of (Downloaded on 04/09/2024 at 09:13:45 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:36761] (2 of 3) [CRLMA-672/2023] a Criminal Regular Case No.367/2013 in which by the order dated 24.07.2018, the trial Court tried, convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner-Manoj Kumar with maximum imprisonment of six months' simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.6,50,000/-. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed an appeal being Criminal Appeal No.85/2018 (CIS No.1216/2018) which also got dismissed on 30.09.2019 and the order of the trial Court was upheld.
2. Being aggrieved with the order dated 30.09.2019, he filed a revision petition along with an application for suspension of sentence No.745/2019 in which vide order dated 11.01.2023, the concession of bail was granted to accused-petitioner Manoj Kumar while suspending his sentence awarded by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court.
3. Bereft of elaborate details, briefly stated the facts necessary for disposal of the instant applications are that after conviction of the accused petitioner Monoj Kumar for offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, he preferred an appeal which was also dismissed. He was taken into custody after judgment of appeal and, therefore, along with revision petition being S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.2337/2019, he moved an application for suspension of sentence under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. before this Court which came to be allowed on 11.01.2023.
4. It would be worthwhile to mention here that upon raising serious questions regarding sustainability of conviction of the accused, the revision petition got admitted and taken for consideration for making a further appreciation of the evidence. The bail was granted to the accused after giving adequate (Downloaded on 04/09/2024 at 09:13:45 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:36761] (3 of 3) [CRLMA-672/2023] opportunity of hearing to the complainant also. His counsel Shri Ram Joshi was also present when the bail was granted. Certain grounds raised on behalf of the accused were taken into account and it was felt that may be the finding of guilt was not proper as the evidence was not appreciated correctly, rather it may be a case of misappreciation of the evidence. It was observed that the learned appellate Court did not make further appreciation of evidence and thus, the bail was granted by this Court by hearing both the parties.
5. The bail granted by this Court by suspending the sentence cannot be cancelled merely on moving an application on behalf of the complainant, particularly, on the ground of propriety of the order since the same cannot be entertained by the same Court at a subsequent stage. This Court is not supposed to review its own order, otherwise also it is not permissible under Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. There is no force in the instant applications and therefore, deserves to be dismissed.
6. Accordingly, the instant applications are dismissed as having no force.
(FARJAND ALI),J 40-41 divya/-
(Downloaded on 04/09/2024 at 09:13:45 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)