Jogesh Kumar vs Ratan Lal
2022 Latest Caselaw 3488 Raj

(1 of 2) [CRLLA-483/2019]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Crml Leave To Appeal No. 483/2019

Jogesh Kumar, Aged About 32 Years, Branch In-Charge, National Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, One Way Road, Jalore, Tehsil And District Jalore.

----Appellant Versus Ratan Lal S/o Shri Chainnaram, By Caste Harijan, R/o Tashkhana Baori, Jalore, Tehsil And District Jalore.

                                                                ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)         :     Mr. Amit Mehta
For Respondent(s)        :

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

07/03/2022

In 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 Court, for the safety of

all concerned.

The petitioner has preferred this leave to appeal claiming the

following reliefs:-

"It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this leave to appeal may kindly be granted, the memo of leave to appeal may kindly be treated to be as the memo of appeal, judgment of acquittal dated 30.03.2019, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Jalore, District Jalore, in criminal original complaint case No.219/2013 (Jogesh Kumar Versus Ratanlal) may kindly be set aside and the accused respondent may kindly be convicted and sentence for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act."

                                                                               (2 of 2)                    [CRLLA-483/2019]



                                          Learned    counsel      for     the     petitioner          submits   that   the

appellant-complainant had filed a complaint under the Negotiable

Instrument Act being a Branch In-charge of National Credit

Cooperative Society Limited, Branch Jalore. The allegation is that

on 07.04.2010, Rs.1,40,000/- was given to the respondent-

accused as loan, which was to be repaid in monthly installment of

Rs.5,990/- for 36 months. The cheque was given by the

respondent-accused, but the same was dishonoured on

01.10.2011 and was returned with insufficient balance on

03.10.2011.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the failure of

the respondent-accused to satisfy the legally enforceable debt

required him to be tried and convicted and thus, the conclusion

arrived at by the learned court below was not in accordance with

law.

Despite service, none appears for the respondent-accused.

This Court, looking into the facts of the case as well as

record, finds that the learned trial court has duly deliberated upon

the whole incident and has found discrepancy in the loan amount,

as well as the fact that the complainant himself could not establish

his authorization to take recourse to the proceeding in question.

Thus, the order passed by the learned court below is a well

reasoned order and does not require any interference by this

Court.

Consequently, the present leave to appeal is dismissed.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 52-Sudheer/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)