IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B.Cr.Revision Petition No.95/99. Mukesh Mehta Vs. Gautam Gattani. 27.3.2009. Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mahesh Chandra Sharma. Mr.A.K.Gupa for the petitioner. Mr.V.P.Bishnoi for the respondent. S.B.Cr.Revision Petition against the judgment and Order dated 20.1.1999 passed by Addl.Sessions Judge & Judge Special Court (Essential Commodities Act), Jaipur, in Appeal No.1/99 by which he maintained judgment of conviction and sentence dated 1.8.98 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.4 Jaipur in Cr.Case No.70/95 whereby she convicted the accused petitioner for the ..2.. offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced with a fine of Rs.1,47,500 and in default of payment of fine 1 month simple imprisonment. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 20.1.1999 passed by Addl.Sessions Judge & Judge Special Court (Essential Commodities Act), Jaipur, in Appeal No.1/99 by which he maintained judgment of conviction and sentence dated 1.8.98 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.4 Jaipur in Cr.Case No.70/95 whereby she convicted the accused petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced with a fine of Rs.1,47,500 and in default of payment of fine 1 month simple imprisonment. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the ..3.. aforesaid judgment and orders passed by both the courts below, preferred the present revision petition before this Court. Without going into the merit of the case Mr.A.K.Gupta Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the amount has been made, nothing remains to do more. Mr.V.P.Bishnoi Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent has also agreed with the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the above, this revision petition is allowed and the orders passed by both the courts below are set-aside. The petitioner is on bail bonds. He need not be surrendered. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma)J. k. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B.Cr.Revision Petition No./99. Nawal Kishore Vs. The State of Rajasthan. 27.3.2009. Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mahesh Chandra Sharma. Mr.Ajai Gupta for the petitioner. Mr.Piyush Kumar for the complainant. Mr.Pradep Srimal P.P for the State. S.B.Cr.Revision Petition against the judgment and Order dated 25.5.1999 passed by Addl.Sessions Judge, Neem Ka Thana in Appeal No.17/90 by which he upheld the judgment Dated 28.8.1990 passed by Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate Neem Ka Thana in Cr.Case No.489/83 (113/81) whereby he convicted the accused petitioner for the offence under Section 420 IPC and sentenced him to 4 ..2.. years R.I with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine further undergo S.I for one year. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 25.5.1999 passed by Addl.Sessions Judge, Neem Ka Thana in Appeal No.17/90 by which he upheld the judgment Dated 28.8.1990 passed by Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate Neem Ka Thana in Cr.Case No.489/83 (113/81) whereby he convicted the accused petitioner for the offence under Section 420 IPC and sentenced him to 4 years R.I with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine further undergo S.I for one year. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and orders passed by both the courts below, preferred the present revision petition before this Court. ..3.. Without going into the merit of the case Mr.Ajai Gupta Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgment of the Court below. He submitted that the the charge framed against the accused petitioner is relating to Rs.400/- only and he remained in judicial custody for 129 days. He further submitted that the petitioner was a clerk of an Advocate and he is 67 years of old. He is suffering from paralyzes and Doctor advised for bed rest and he cannot move and also having marriageable children and the petitioner is a poor person. Therefore, he prayed that the benefit of probation or benefit of Section 360 Cr.P.C. Mr.Piush Kumar appearing on behalf of the respondent complainant and Mr.Pradeep ..4.. Srimal learned Public Prosecutor have opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner. For the reasons mentioned herein above and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to take a lenient view in the matter and I do not think it proper to send the accused petitioner back to jail. In the result, I maintain the order of conviction passed by the learned trial court, but looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the accused petitioner has already remained in judicial custody for 129 days, ends of justice would be met in case the petitioner is released for the period already undergone by him. The accused petitioner ..5.. has already deposited Rs.2500/- instead of 10,000/- and the amount of fine is reduced from Rs.10,000/-(Ten Thousand) to 2,500/-(Two Thousand Five Hundred). This revision petition is partly allowed and the orders passed by the courts below is modified to the extent as indicated above. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma)J. k.