Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Firm Rajendra Udyog vs Firm Jindal Feeds Mill on 2 March, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Crml Leave To Appeal No. 235/2021
Firm Rajendra Udyog, Through Proprietor Sarvankumar S/o
Bheem Sen Age 53 Years, R/o 26-Lakkad Mandi Road
Sriganganagar.
----Appellant
Versus
Firm Jindal Feeds Mill, Through Proprietor Mukesh Kumar S/o
Laxminarayan Address Kaliyan Road, 4 Km Ahead, Teenpuli,
Sriganganagar.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Umesh Kant Vyas
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gopi Ram Goyal
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
02/03/2022
1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID - 19 cases and spread
of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being
maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety
of all concerned.
2. This criminal leave to appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C.
has been preferred, with the following prayer:
"It is most respectfully prayed that this leave to
appeal may kindly be allowed and this petition may
kindly be treated appeal & the order and judgment
impugned dated 03.09.21 passed by learned Judicial
Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No.1, Dist. Sriganganagar
kindly be ordered to quash."
(Downloaded on 02/03/2022 at 08:32:17 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLLA-235/2021]
3. Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant submits that
the present complainant/appellant had filed a complaint under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the
respondent, on count of dishonour of certain cheque, alleged to
have been issued by the respondent in favour of the complainant
in connection with some business transaction between the parties.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant further
submits that the learned trial court, however, after taking
cognizance and conducting the proceedings, acquitted the
respondent vide its judgment and order dated 03.09.2021 of the
charge under Section 138 of the Act, while ignoring the evidence
on record, to the effect that the amount in question was legally an
enforceable debt against the respondent, thereby making a clear
case under Section 138 of the Act to be made out against the
respondent. Thus, as per learned counsel, the order of acquittal
passed by the learned trial court lacks the proper appreciation of
the evidence on record, and hence, the same cannot be sustained
in the eye of law.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
submits that the respondent took a specific defence before the
learned trial court regarding misuse of the cheque issued by him
to the complainant. Learned counsel also submits that the
complainant before the learned trial court completely failed to
substantiate his case by bringing the relevant material in the form
of documentary evidence on record, viz., date, month & year of
the purchase of corn by the respondent, alongwith price and
weight thereof, alleged to have been purchased by the
respondent. Learned counsel thus, submits that such failure on
the part of the complainant, in discharge of his burden, clearly
(Downloaded on 02/03/2022 at 08:32:17 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLLA-235/2021]
falsify his case against the respondent under Section 138 of the
Act.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as
perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that the
complainant/appellant in the present case has failed to bring the
material evidence on record before the learned trial court, in
regard to the date, month & year of the alleged sell of the corn,
exact weight of the corn so purchased by the respondent and the
price at which such corn was sold by the complainant to the
respondent. On that count alone, it can safely be presumed that
the amount in question was not a legally enforceable debt against
the respondent. Moreover, this Court finds that the learned trial
court has recorded a reasoned finding to the effect that by no
stretch of imagination, it can be presumed that in the ordinary
course of business, any business firm would perform its day to day
business transactions without maintaining or keeping any
documentary evidence in support thereof.
7. In light of the aforesaid observations, this Court finds that
the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial
court does not suffer from any illegality or perversity so as to
warrant any interference therein by this Court, and thus, no
ground is made out to grant leave to the complainant for filing an
appeal against the said judgment and order.
8. Consequently, the present leave to appeal is dismissed, as
being devoid of any merit. Record be returned to the learned trial
court forthwith.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.
81-SKant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
