Pro. Mess. Kalpana Interprises vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 9675 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3495/2022

Pro. Mess. Kalpana Interprises, 92, Ramdev Nagar, Opposite Indian School, Old Jhanwar Road, Jodhpur Through Prop. Sandeep Sharma S/o Sh. Dinesh Sharma, Age 34 Years, R/o 92, Ramdev Nagar, Opposite Indian School, Old Jhanwar Road, Jodhpur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. L.d.r. Food Products, Plot No. 11, Udhyog Nagar, Tanavua, Jodhpur Rajasthan Through Proprietor.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Naval Kishor Soni For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mool Singh Bhati, PP

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

25/07/2022

1. By way of the present petition under Section 482 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has challenged order

dated 07.12.2021, passed by learned Additional District and

Sessions Judge No.7, Jodhpur Metropolitan, whereby, the

petitioner has been asked to deposit a sum of Rs.27,000/- as per

the requirement under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments

Act, 1881.

2. It was argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the

trial Court has erred in directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of

Rs.27,000/-, considering the provisions of Section 148 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 to be mandatory.

(2 of 2) [CRLMP-3495/2022]

3. While informing that the petitioner has deposited the amount

of Rs.27,000/-, learned counsel alternatively prayed that the trial

Court be directed not to disburse the amount of Rs.27,000/- to

the complainant.

4. So far as the first argument of the petitioner is concerned,

the same is not sustainable in light of the judgment of this Court

rendered in case of G.K. Construction Company Vs. Balaji

Makan Samagri Stone: S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition

No.189/2022.

5. In relation to the second/alternative submission made by

learned counsel for the petitioner that the amount be not

disbursed to the complainant is concerned, no such relief can be

granted by this Court, particularly, when such prayer was not

made before the trial Court.

6. While dismissing the present petition, the petitioner is given

a liberty to move appropriate application before the Appellate

Court for not disbursing the amount to the complainant.

7. In case, any such application is filed, the Appellate Court

shall consider the same, in accordance with law.

8. The stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 219-pooja/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)