Abdul Gani Khan vs Sanjay Gajja
2021 Latest Caselaw 9951 Raj

(1 of 2) [CRLLA-10/2019]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Crml Leave To Appeal No. 10/2019

Abdul Gani Khan S/o Lakhe Khan, Aged About 70 Years, B/c Musalman Sindhi, R/o- Mochi Market, Opp. Manohar Ji Hospital, Inside Siwanchi Gate, Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Appellant Versus Sanjay Gajja S/o Shri Shambhudutt Gajja, R/o Pura Mohalla, Bhajan Chowki, Kabutaro Ka Chouk, Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Avinash Bhati For Respondent(s) : None present

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

Order

01/07/2021

The instant application for leave to appeal under Section

378(4) Cr.P.C. has been filed by the complainant-Abdul Gani Khan

seeking leave to file an appeal against the judgment dated

25.04.2018 passed by the learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate

(N.I.Act Cases) No.7, Jodhpur Metro in Criminal Original Case

No.180/2016 whereby, the respondent Sanjay Gajja was acquitted

from the accusation under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instrument Act.

I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by

the counsel Shri Avinash Bhati and have gone through the

impugned judgment and the record.

On a perusal of the original record, it becomes clear that the

appellant complainant did not place on record the registry receipt

whereby, the notice (Ex.P/3) under Section 138 of the Act was

(2 of 2) [CRLLA-10/2019]

allegedly issued to the complainant. The trial court appreciated

the entire record and held that the complainant could not lead

appropriate evidence to satisfy the Court regarding the mandatory

requirement of issuance of the notice under Section 138 of the

N.I. Act to the accused.

In this background, I am of the firm opinion that the

impugned judgment dated 25.04.2018, acquitting the respondent

from the accusation under Section 138 of the N.I. Act does not

suffer from any infirmity either factual or legal warranting

interference therein. Thus, it is not a fit case for granting leave to

the applicant-complainant for filing appeal against the impugned

judgment.

Accordingly, the leave to appeal application fails and is

hereby rejected as being devoid of merit.

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

55-Mamta/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)