Brij Mohan Vs. State of Rajasthan

Brij Mohan vs State of Rajasthan

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Jan 09, 1985

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/760228

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/760228
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: Gopal Kishan Sharma, J.
Decided On: Jan 09, 1985
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Revision No. 278 of 1978
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Penal Code - Section 408--Sentence--No amount to be recovered from accused--Incident relates to 1965-66--Accused to support a big family and daughter's marriage in next month--Already suffered imprisonment for 24 days--Held, ends of justice will meet if sentence is reduced to already undergone ; So, Now, there is no...

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Brij Mohan

Respondent

State of Rajasthan

Legal References

Reported In: 1985(2)WLN47

Excerpt

.....will meet if sentence is reduced to already undergone ; so, now, there is nothing to be recovered from the accused-petitioner. no doubt, he has committed this offence, but in the circumstances that the incident relates to the year 1965-66, and the fact that the petitioner is having a large family and his daughter is to be married in the next month, if he sent back to jail, it would cause a great hardship to him and his family as well. ; in the circumstance that he has already been in jail for 24 days, in my opinion the period of setence of imprisonment already undergone by him, would meet the ends of justice. ;revision partly accepted - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - no doubt, he has committed this offence, but, in the circumstances that the incident relates to the year 1965-66, and the fact that the petitioner is having a large family and his daughter is..........deposited the sum of rs. 2,000/- in the fixed deposit, has been paid the said amount along with the interest accrued thereon. similarly, babulal, who had also deposited his amount, has been paid back his amount fully with interest. so, now, there is nothing to be recovered from the accused-petitioner. no doubt, he has committed this offence, but, in the circumstances that the incident relates to the year 1965-66, and the fact that the petitioner is having a large family and his daughter is to be married in the next month, if he is sent back to jail, it would cause a great hardship to him and his family as well.4. i have considered the argument of the learned counsel. the petitioner has already been in jail for 24 days. specially because of the fact that the incident relates to the year 1965-66, and that the petitioner has been facing the trial in this case since then when the challan was submitted and after a lapse of nine years, it would be harsh and most unreasonable if the petitioner is sent back to jail to undergo the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him by the lower court.5. in the circumstance that he has already been in jail for 24 days, in my opinion the period of sentence of imprisonment already undergone by him would meet the ends of justice.6. the revision petition is, therefore, partly accepted. the conviction of the petitioner under section 408, ipc, as held by the lower court, is maintained. but, he is sentenced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. the sentence of fine is also maintained. mr. bhandari prays for time to deposit the fine of rs. 500/-. one month's time is granted for the purpose of depositing the said fine, if it has not been so deposited so far. the petitioner is on bail. he need not surrender to his bail-bonds which are hereby discharged.

Full Judgment

Gopal Kishan Sharma, J.

1. This revision has been preferred against the judgment dated 5th Oct. 1978, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Baran, confirming the conviction and the sentence of the petitioner for the offence under Section 408 IPC.

2. The petitioner was prosecuted for the offence Under Section 408, IPC, on the written report dated 11th Aug. 1968. lodged by the Manager, Nagrik Sehkari Bank, Baran. It was alleged therein that the petitioner was posted as Manager in that bank and that, during the period from 1st Nov., 1965 to 27th June, 1966, the petitioner misappropriated some amount of the bank, and misused it. It was also alleged that one Mst. Sharbati Devi opened a fixed-deposit account of Rs. 2000/- on 1st Nov. 1965. The petitioner did not prepare the voucher and no entry was made in the cash-book and the day-book. Then, on 27th June, 1966 one Babulal deposited a sum of Rs. 5000/- in his Fixed-Deposit a/c No. 68, though Receipt No. 100 dated 27th June, 1966. But, the petitioner deposited Rs. 3000/- only in the said account of Babulal and the rest amount was deposited in the account of Mst. Sharbati Devi. On 15th July, 1977, Babulal re-deposited Rs. 5,000/-in his fixed-deposit account vide receipt No. 109 dated 15th July, 1967. In the voucher, cash-book and the pay-book, instead of Rs. 5000/- after overwriting, Rs. 3.000/- was made. Although interest on Rs. 5,000/- was paid to Babulal, the petitioner misused Rs. 2000/-. Thus, he put the bank in a loss of interest. It was also alleged that Smt. Nirmala Kumari, wife of the accused also opened an account in the said bank where the accused was Manager. On 19th Sept. 1957, there was only a balance of Rs. 55.41 in the said account of Smt. Nirmala Kumari. On that date, the accused through his own signatures, vide voucher No. 423, debited a sum of Rs. 510/-. But, no entry of this debit was made in the account of Smt. Nirmala Kumari. Thus, a sum of Rs. 492.62 was embezzled in that entry. After investigation, the accused was prosecuted. The learned Magistrate found him guilty Under Section 408, IPC and sentenced him to 2 years RI and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 month's SI. The petitioner then preferred an appeal against this judgment. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge dismissed his appeal and maintained his conviction awarded to him by the learned Magistrate.

3. In this revision petition, Mr. Bhandari, the learned counsel for the petitioner, did not argue on the merits of this case. His only argument was about taking a lenient view in this matter. He argued that the incident relates to the year 1965-66, and since then, the petitioner has been facing the trial. From the record of this case, it is clear that Mst. Sharbati Devi who deposited the sum of Rs. 2,000/- in the fixed deposit, has been paid the said amount along with the interest accrued thereon. Similarly, Babulal, who had also deposited his amount, has been paid back his amount fully with interest. So, now, there is nothing to be recovered from the accused-petitioner. No doubt, he has committed this offence, but, in the circumstances that the incident relates to the year 1965-66, and the fact that the petitioner is having a large family and his daughter is to be married in the next month, if he is sent back to jail, it would cause a great hardship to him and his family as well.

4. I have considered the argument of the learned counsel. The petitioner has already been in jail for 24 days. Specially because of the fact that the incident relates to the year 1965-66, and that the petitioner has been facing the trial in this case since then when the challan was submitted and after a lapse of nine years, it would be harsh and most unreasonable if the petitioner is sent back to jail to undergo the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him by the lower court.

5. In the circumstance that he has already been in jail for 24 days, in my opinion the period of sentence of imprisonment already undergone by him would meet the ends of justice.

6. The revision petition is, therefore, partly accepted. The conviction of the petitioner Under Section 408, IPC, as held by the lower court, is maintained. But, he is sentenced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. The sentence of fine is also maintained. Mr. Bhandari prays for time to deposit the fine of Rs. 500/-. One month's time is granted for the purpose of depositing the said fine, if it has not been so deposited so far. The petitioner is on bail. He need not surrender to his bail-bonds which are hereby discharged.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 1985 Same Parties Brij Mohan vs State of Rajasthan Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Gopal Kishan Sharma, J.

Criminal