Rajasthan High Court: In an application for suspension of sentence filed against the judgment passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate (‘SJM’), wherein the applicant was convicted and sentenced to suffer six months’ simple imprisonment and to pay compensation of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- as per provisions under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the Single Judge Bench of Farjand Ali J. has allowed the application and suspended the sentence passed by the SJM.
The convict contended that the trial Judge had not appreciated the correct, legal, and factual aspects of the matter and thus, reached at an erroneous conclusion of guilt. Also, prima facie the allegations levelled in the complaint by the complainant seem to be highly dubious and absurd and has failed to convincingly establish the fact that how a sum of Rs. 1 crore and more in case was available with him to let out to the convict, as the complainant had been serving as a convict employee. In addition to it, there lies a presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act that the initial burden always lies upon the complainant to establish the fact by producing clinching and cogent evidence that the cheque was given by the accused to him against any legal debt or liability.
After considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly the fact that the hearing of revision is likely to take more time, the Court said that it is a fit case for suspending the sentence awarded to the convict. Therefore, the Court allowed the application for suspension of sentence and ordered that the sentence passed by SJM against the convict should remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid revision
Thus, the Court released him on bail with certain conditions.
[Harak Chand Bansal v. Bhagwat Singh Rathore and State of Rajasthan, 2023 SCC OnLine Raj 1120, Order dated 5-7-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Advocates for the petitioner:Advocate Harsh Tikoo
Advocate for the respondent: Advocate Abhishek Purohit.
