HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 216/2018
Subratodas S/o Late Shri Harnathdas B/c Bangali, R/o 51/1/1,
Nabanari Tala, First By Lane, 41, Shivpur, Havda, West Bengal
711306. At Present The Accused Is Confined In The Central Jail,
Jaipur
—-Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.
—-Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 103/2018
Shiv Bahadur S/o Shri Bhakta Bahadur, R/o 194, Sushilpura,
Ajmer Road, Jaipur, Raj.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.
2. Subratodas S/o Late Shri Harnathdas B/c Bengali Kayasth,
R/o 51/1/1, Nabanari Tala, First By Lane, 41, Shivpur,
Howrah, West Bengal 711306.
—-Respondents
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 105/2018
Dabar Singh Negi S/o Late Shri Umrao Singh Negi, R/o Village
Babliya, Post Pattharkhola Patti Malla Chakot, Tehsil Bhikayasain,
District Almoda, Uttarakhand.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.
2. Subratodas S/o Late Shri Harnathdas B/c Bengali Kayasth,
R/o 51/1/1, Nabanari Tala, First By Lane, 41, Shivpur,
Howrah, West Bengal 711306.
—-Respondents
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 188/2018
Viren Barman Son Of Shri Shyam Sundar Barman, By Caste
Rajvansi Bangali, R/o A-39, Hari Nagar, Sushilpura, Ajmer Road,
Sodala, Jaipur Rajasthan
(2 of 13) [CRLR-216/2018]
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
2. Subratodas Son Of Late Shri Harnathdas, By Caste Bengali
Kayasth, R/o 51/1/1, Nabanari Tala, First By Lane, 41,
Shivpur, Howrah, West Bengal-711306
—-Respondents
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 189/2018
Biren Barman S/o Harendra Nath Barman, R/o Village Hakakura,
Madhapur, Distt. Kooch Bihar, West Bengal.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through P.p.
2. Subratodas S/o Late Shri Harnathdas B/c Bengali Kayasth,
R/o 51/1/1, Nabanari Tala, First By Lane, 41, Shivpur,
Howrah, West Bengal-711306.
—-Respondents
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 190/2018
Ravindra Barman S/o Shri Debru Barman, B/c Bangali, R/o 148,
Hathroi, Ajmer Road, Jaipur Raj.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.
2. Subratodas S/o Late Shri Harnathdas B/c Bengali Kayasth,
R/o 51/1/1, Nabanari Tala, First By Lane, 41, Shivpur,
Howrah, West Bengal 711306.
—-Respondents
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 191/2018
Vishwajeet Roy S/o Dudheshwar Roy, R/o 1-2, Shiv Vihar Colony,
Sushilpura, Sodala, Jaipur Raj.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.
2. Subratodas S/o Late Shri Harnathdas B/c Bengali Kayasth,
R/o 51/1/1, Nabanari Tala, First By Lane, 41, Shivpur,
Howrah, West Bengal 711306.
—-Respondents
(3 of 13) [CRLR-216/2018]
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 192/2018
Pratap Das S/o Ramdayal Das, B/c Punjabi, R/o- 11, Maa
Shakambhari Nagar, Sushilpura, Ajmer Road, Sodala, Jaipur Raj.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.
2. Subratodas S/o Late Shri Harnathdas B/c Bengali Kayasth,
R/o 51/1/1, Nabanari Tala, First By Lane, 41, Shivpur,
Howrah, West Bengal 711306.
—-Respondents
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 193/2018
Ravindra Nath Roy S/o Jitendra Nath Roy, R/o Plot No. 234, Shiv
Colony, Sushilpura, Sodala, Jaipur Raj.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through P.p.
2. Subratodas S/o Late Shri Harnathdas B/c Bengali Kayasth,
R/o 51/1/1, Nabanari Tala, First By Lane, 41, Shivpur,
Howrah, West Bengal-711306.
—-Respondents
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 194/2018
Nagendra Nath Roy S/o Pushpnath Roy, B/c Bangali, R/o R-4,
Yudhisthar Marg, C-Scheme, Police Station Ashok Nagar, Jaipur
(Raj.)
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.
2. Subratodas S/o Late Shri Harnathdas B/c Bengali Kayasth,
R/o 51/1/1, Nabanari Tala, First By Lane, 41, Shivpur,
Howrah, West Bengal 711306.
—-Respondents
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 195/2018
Shyamal Das S/o Shri Nitesh Chand Das, R/o 5-C, Opposite
Laxmi Mandir Cinema Hall, Tonk Road, Jaipur Raj.
—-Petitioner
Versus
(4 of 13) [CRLR-216/2018]
1. State Of Rajasthan Through P.p.
2. Subratodas S/o Late Shri Harnathdas B/c Bengali Kayasth,
R/o 51/1/1, Nabanari Tala, First By Lane, 41, Shivpur,
Howrah, West Bengal-711306.
—-Respondents
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 217/2018
Subratodas S/o Late Shri Harnathdas B/c Bangali, R/o 51/1/1,
Nabanari Tala, First By Lane, 41, Shivpur, Havda, West Bengal
711306. At Present The Accused Is Confined In The Central Jail,
Jaipur
—-Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.
—-Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 218/2018
Subratodas S/o Late Shri Harnathdas B/c Bangali, R/o 51/1/1,
Nabanari Tala, First By Lane, 41, Shivpur, Havda, West Bengal
711306. At Present The Accused Is Confined In The Central Jail,
Jaipur
—-Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.
—-Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 219/2018
Subratodas S/o Late Shri Harnathdas B/c Bangali, R/o 51/1/1,
Nabanari Tala, First By Lane, 41, Shivpur, Havda, West Bengal
711306. At Present The Accused Is Confined In The Central Jail,
Jaipur
—-Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.
—-Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 220/2018
Subratodas S/o Late Shri Harnathdas B/c Bangali, R/o 51/1/1,
Nabanari Tala, First By Lane, 41, Shivpur, Havda, West Bengal
711306. At Present The Accused Is Confined In The Central Jail,
Jaipur
(5 of 13) [CRLR-216/2018]
—-Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.
—-Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 221/2018
Subratodas S/o Late Shri Harnathdas B/c Bangali, R/o 51/1/1,
Nabanari Tala, First By Lane, 41, Shivpur, Havda, West Bengal
711306. At Present The Accused Is Confined In The Central Jail,
Jaipur
—-Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.
—-Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 222/2018
Subratodas S/o Late Shri Harnathdas B/c Bangali, R/o 51/1/1,
Nabanari Tala, First By Lane, 41, Shivpur, Hawda, West Bengal
711306. At Present The Accused Is Confined In The Central Jail,
Jaipur
—-Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.
—-Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 223/2018
Subratodas S/o Late Shri Harnathdas B/c Bangali, R/o 51/1/1,
Nabanari Tala, First By Lane, 41, Shivpur, Havda, West Bengal
711306. At Present The Accused Is Confined In The Central Jail,
Jaipur
—-Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.
—-Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 224/2018
Subratodas S/o Late Shri Harnathdas B/c Bengali, R/o 51/1/1,
Nabanari Tala, First By Lane, 41, Shivpur, Howda, West Bengal
711306. At Present The Accused Is Confined In The Central Jail,
Jaipur.
—-Petitioner
(6 of 13) [CRLR-216/2018]
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.
—-Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 225/2018
Subratodas S/o Late Shri Harnathdas B/c Bangali, R/o 51/1/1,
Nabanari Tala, First By Lane, 41, Shivpur, Havda, West Bengal
711306. At Present The Accused Is Confined In The Central Jail,
Jaipur
—-Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.
—-Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 226/2018
Subratodas S/o Late Shri Harnathdas B/c Bangali, R/o 51/1/1,
Nabanari Tala, First By Lane, 41, Shivpur, Havda, West Bengal
711306. At Present The Accused Is Confined In The Central Jail,
Jaipur
—-Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.
—-Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 227/2018
Subratodas S/o Late Shri Harnathdas B/c Bangali, R/o 51/1/1,
Nabanari Tala, First By Lane, 41, Shivpur, Havda, West Bengal
711306. At Present The Accused Is Confined In The Central Jail,
Jaipur
—-Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.
—-Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 228/2018
Subratodas S/o Late Shri Harnathdas B/c Bangali, R/o 51/1/1,
Nabanari Tala, First By Lane, 41, Shivpur, Havda, West Bengal
711306. At Present The Accused Is Confined In The Central Jail,
Jaipur
—-Petitioner
Versus
(7 of 13) [CRLR-216/2018]
State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.
—-Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 229/2018
Subratodas S/o Late Shri Harnathdas B/c Bangali, R/o 51/1/1,
Nabanari Tala, First By Lane, 41, Shivpur, Havda, West Bengal
711306. At Present The Accused Is Confined In The Central Jail,
Jaipur
—-Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.
—-Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 339/2018
Molina Roy W/o Shri Manoranjan, B/c Bengali, R/o 222, Shiv
Colony, Sushilpura, Ajmer Road, Sodala, Jaipur Raj.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.
2. Subratodas S/o Late Shri Harnathdas B/c Bengali Kayasth,
R/o 51/1/1, Nabanari Tala, First By Lane, 41, Shivpur,
Howrah, West Bengal 711306.
—-Respondents
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 340/2018
Mahadev Adhikari S/o Shri Mangal Adhikari, B/c Bengali, R/o
234, Shiv Colony, Sushilpura, Ajmer Road, Sodala, Jaipur Raj.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.
2. Subratodas S/o Late Shri Harnathdas B/c Bengali Kayasth,
R/o 51/1/1, Nabanari Tala, First By Lane, 41, Shivpur,
Howrah, West Bengal 711306.
—-Respondents
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 341/2018
Prabha Barman W/o Shri Ram Joy Barman, B/c Bangali, R/o 105,
Hanuman Vatika, Villa Town, Near Shiv Colony, Sushilpura,
Sodala, Jaipur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
(8 of 13) [CRLR-216/2018]
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.
2. Subratodas S/o Late Shri Harnathdas B/c Bengali Kayasth,
R/o 51/1/1, Nabanari Tala, First By Lane, 41, Shivpur,
Howrah, West Bengal 711306.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Jindal with Mr. Ashindra
Gautam, Adv.
For Complainant : Mr. Ganga Ram Sharma, Adv.
For State : Mr. Arvind Kr. Chawla, PP.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Order
01/03/2019
1. Revision Petition Nos.216/2018, 217/2018, 218/2018,
219/2018, 220/2018, 221/2018, 222/2018, 223/2018, 224/2018,
225/2018, 226/2018, 227/2018, 228/2018 and 229/2018 have
been preferred by the accused-petitioner whereas revision petition
Nos.103/2018, 105/2018, 188/2018, 189/2018, 190/2018,
191/2018, 192/2018, 193/2018, 194/2018, 195/2018, 339/2018,
340/2018 and 341/2018 have been preferred by the
complainants.
2. Accused Petitioner has preferred Revision Petitions
aggrieved by the order dated 27.04.2017 passed by the
Metropolitan Magistrate No.11, Jaipur Metropolitan whereby the
petitioner has been convicted for offences under Section 420, 406
and 120B of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo three years
rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 420 IPC with a
fine of Rs. 50,000/-, on non-payment whereof petitioner has to
undergo two months simple imprisonment. For offence under
Section 406 IPC petitioner has been sentenced to undergo two
(9 of 13) [CRLR-216/2018]
years rigorous imprisonment and for offence under Section 120B
IPC to undergo six months simple imprisonment. Fine has been
directed to be paid to the complainant and against the judgment
and order dated 05.10.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge, No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan whereby appeal preferred by the
petitioner was rejected whereas complainant has preferred
Revision Petitions for enhancement of sentence.
3. It is contended by the Counsel for the accused
petitioner that there are serious infirmities in the impugned orders
passed by the Courts below. The deposit as per the complaint was
taken by the Company. There is no evidence to show that the
amount was received by the petitioner. It is contended that
Company has not been made as an accused in the case and the
conviction of the petitioner was thus bad in law. It is contended
that prior to the date of maturity, complainants have filed
complaints as a result of which, the amount could not be refunded
to the complainants. In the alternative it is contended that the
petitioner has been sentenced to three years rigorous
imprisonment in all the cases and since all the cases were decided
on the same date and pertain to same offence the sentence should
be directed to run concurrently.
4. Counsel for the accused petitioner in this respect has
placed reliance on judgment of this Court in Sanjay Sharma Vs.
Nirmala Dadhich- S.B.Criminal Revision Petition
No.179/2016 and connected revision petitions decided on
10.04.2017 and judgment of this Court in S.B.Criminal
Revision Petition No.452/2017- Indraj Singh Vs. State of
(10 of 13) [CRLR-216/2018]
Raj. and other connected revision petitions decided on
31.07.2017. Reliance has also been placed on V.K.Bansal Vs.
State of Haryana Anr. (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 211
wherein the Apex Court has held that Courts have the discretion
to direct the sentence to run concurrently. Reliance has also been
placed on 2017(1) WLC(SC) Cri.461-Benson Vs. State of
Kerala wherein the Apex Court directed the sentences to run
concurrently.
5. Counsel for the complainant-petitioners have contended
that the sentence imposed should be enhanced, prayer is made
that the maximum sentence of 7 years rigorous imprisonment be
imposed for offence under Section 420 IPC and three years
rigorous imprisonment be imposed for offence under Section 406
IPC. Prayer is also made for increasing the fine amount. It is
contended that the police after due investigation came to the
conclusion that the offence is made out against three persons;
present accused, his wife and Bhaskar Lehari, Director of the
Company, against whom trial is pending before the Courts below.
It is contended that accused has cheated as many as 523 persons
and the total amount is to the tune of about Rs. 1,32,01,000/-.
6. I have considered the contentions.
7. So far as revision petitions filed by the complainants
are concerned, considering the fact that none of the complainant
has deposed that the amount was paid directly to the accused and
also taking note of the fact that Company has not been made an
accused, I do not find anything wrong in the quantum of sentence
imposed, hence, the sentence imposed cannot be enhanced.
(11 of 13) [CRLR-216/2018]
8. Consequently revision petitions filed by the
complainants are dismissed.
9. However, as far as revision petitions filed by the
accused are concerned, since the petitioner during the course of
argument has not pressed the impugned orders on merit and his
only contention is that the sentences be directed to run
concurrently in view of the judgment relied upon by the Counsel
for the accused, this Court does not deem it proper to go into the
merits of the case and confine its order to the sentence.
10. This Court in Indraj Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
(supra) was ceased with a similar type of matter, therein the
petitioner was convicted for offences under Section 420, 406 IPC
and Chit Fund Act. This Court after discussing the various
judgments of the Apex Court and Rajasthan High Court partly
allowed the revision petitions and directed the sentences to run
concurrently. Similar was the view taken by this Court in Sanjay
Sharma Vs. Nirmala Dadhich (supra) where the conviction in
different cases was under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the
Court directed the sentences to run concurrently.
11. The Apex Court in V.K.Bansal Vs. State of Haryana
(supra) was also dealing with the cases under the Negotiable
Instrument Act. The Apex Court directed the sentence to run
concurrently. The Apex Court in Benson Vs. State of Kerala
(supra) was dealing with the matters pertaining to theft and
observed that there was nothing wrong in the quantum of
sentence imposed in respect of the respective crimes. However,
going by the sentence calculation, the sentence imposed in
(12 of 13) [CRLR-216/2018]
respect of the first crime started w.e.f. 20.11.2003 and the last
sentence would be over by 19.08.2022, which would effectively
mean that the total length of sentences in aggregate would be
around 19 years. In the case before the Apex Court the sentence
in respect of 8th crime was running against the appellant. The
Court directed that sentence in respect of crime Nos. 9 to 12
would run concurrently with the sentence imposed in crime No.8.
12. In the present case in hand, the sentence which has
been passed would run for 42 years if the same is not directed to
run concurrently as the sentence imposed in each of the case is
three years rigorous imprisonment.
13. In view of the judgment of this Court and Apex Court
and the peculiar facts of this case, also taking note of the fact that
the Company was not made an accused and none of the
complainants have deposed that the amount was paid directly to
the petitioner, I deem it proper to partly allow the revision
petitions.
14. The revision petitions are partly allowed. While
upholding the judgment of conviction passed by the Courts below,
it is directed that the substantive sentences passed against the
petitioners in the above cases would run concurrently. However,
the petitioners would be required to to pay the fine imposed by
the Court and in default of payment of fine to undergo the
sentences awarded in default of payment of fine. Sentence in lieu
of non-payment of fine would run consecutively.
(13 of 13) [CRLR-216/2018]
15. The Revisions Petitions filed by accused petitioner are
accordingly partly allowed whereas the Revision Petitions filed by
the complainant are dismissed.
16. The applications for suspension of sentence also stand
disposed.
17. Copy of the order be placed in each file.
18. Record of the Court below be returned forthwith.
19. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court by
fax/email today itself with a direction to serve a photostat copy of
the same to the petitioner and an additional copy of this order be
also sent to the concerned Court by ordinary process.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J.
N.Gandhi/76-102
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
