Ashok Raj Jhala vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 6281 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 182/2021

Ashok Raj Jhala S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad, Aged About 35 Years, Bunkar Basti, Bhawanta Road, Near Shivji Mandir, Kuchaman City, District Nagaur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

2. Lrs Of Seeta Ram S/o Shri Dula Ram, Through Legal Heir.

3. Kamla Devi W/o Late Shri Seeta Ram, Retya Balaji, Haritpura (Khariya), Tehsil Kuchaman City, District Nagaur.

4. Kavita D/o Late Shri Seeta Ram, Retya Balaji, Haritpura (Khariya), Tehsil Kuchaman City, District Nagaur.

5. Kavita D/o Late Shri Seeta Ram, Retya Balaji, Haritpura (Khariya), Tehsil Kuchaman City, District Nagaur.

6. Devendra S/o Late Shri Seeta Ram, Retya Balaji, Haritpura (Khariya), Tehsil Kuchaman City, District Nagaur.

7. Rahul S/o Late Seeta Ram, Aged About 15 Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Kamla Devi, R/o Retya Balaji, Haritpura (Khariya), Tehsil Kuchaman City, District Nagaur.

                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :    None present
For Respondent(s)         :    Mr. S.K. Bhati, PP



             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

                                     Order

23/08/2023

1. The present criminal revision petition under Section 397/401

of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment dated 01.12.2020

passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Parbatsar,

(2 of 4) [CRLR-182/2021]

District Nagaur in Criminal Regular Appeal No.39/2017 whereby,

the learned Judge dismissed the appeal and affirmed the

judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated

21.02.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kuchaman

City in Criminal Regular Case No.197/2015 by which the accused

was convicted under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act and

was sentenced for one years 'simple imprisonment and fine of

Rs.2,24,000/- and in default of payment of fine further undergo

three months additional simple imprisonment.

2. The matter is pending before this Court since the year 2021

and five defects were pointed out by the Registry on 20.02.2021.

Whereafter, several opportunities were given to the petitioner to

remove the defects but no heed has been paid to do so. The

matter was listed yesterday but none was present. Today also,

even in second round of call, no one appeared to represent the

petitioner.

3. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor and gone through

the both the judgments under assail passed by the learned

Magistrate as well as by the learned Court of appeal.

4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that an amount of

Rs.1,12,000/- was lent to the petitioner and in lieu thereof, he

gave a cheque to the complainant-respondent, which upon

presentation before the Bank concerned, came to be returned for

the reason of 'insufficiency of funds' in the account of the

petitioner. The notice was given to him but the borrowed money

was not returned back. Whereafter, the complainant-respondent

(3 of 4) [CRLR-182/2021]

submitted a Criminal Complaint before the learned Judicial

Magistrate concerned.

5. After a full-fledged trial and hearing the counsel for the

parties vide judgment dated 21.12.2017, the learning Magistrate

found the accused-petitioner guilty of the offence under Section

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and convicted and

sentenced him as mentioned above.

6. The said judgment dated 21.12.2017 was assailed by the

petitioner by preferring an appeal under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C.

before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Parbatsar,

District Nagaur wherein after hearing the parties and making

further appreciation of evidence brought on record, the learned

Court of appeal concurred with the findings arrived at by the

learned Court of first instance and affirmed the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence dated 01.12.2020. Hence, both

the judgments are under challenge before this Court by way of

filing the instant Criminal Revision.

7. For the purpose of examining the legality, correctness and

propriety of the judgment of conviction/finding of guilt and order

of sentence, I have minutely gone through the facts narrated in

both the judgments but find nothing which may call for any

interference by this Court. There is a concurrent finding of the fact

by the two Courts below. The cheque was given by the petitioner

in the Year 2013 and the complainant party would be waiting for a

justifiable disposal of the case.

(4 of 4) [CRLR-182/2021]

8. Thus, viewing the matter from any angle, I find nothing to

interfere in the judgment. There is no force in the instant revision

petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

9. The application for suspension of sentence stands disposed

of.

(FARJAND ALI),J 212-Samvedana/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)