Rajasthan High Court
Badri Singh Rao Son Of Shri Prem Singh Rao vs Shri Yogendra Singh Son Of Shri Gog Singh ... on 23 January, 2024
Author: Praveer Bhatnagar
Bench: Praveer Bhatnagar
[2024:RJ-JP:4215]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1911/2023
Badri Singh Rao Son Of Shri Prem Singh Rao, Aged About 57
Years, Resident Of Plot No 27-A, Shri Nandgav Colony Laxmi
Nagar Niwaru Road, Jhotwara Jaipur Rrajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Shri Yogendra Singh Son Of Shri Gog Singh, Resident Of
56-B, Mathur Vaishya Nagar, Ram Mandir Ke Peeche, Near
Airport Tonk Road, Jaipur Rajasthan
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp Rajasthan High Court
Jaipur Bench Jaipur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.C. Jain
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumar, PP
Mr. Mitesh Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR
Order
23/01/2024
This criminal revision petition is preferred against the order
dated 07.10.2023, passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge
No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan First in appeal No.47/2023 whereby
learned appellate court directed the petitioner to deposit
Rs.70,000/- as compensation while staying the conviction passed
against the petitioner under Section 138 of NI Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the condition
of paying 20% of fine imposed by the appellate court is illegal and
against the law. The case of the petitioner falls in exceptional
category and imposition of such condition is onerous.
[2024:RJ-JP:4215] (2 of 3) [CRLR-1911/2023]
Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the
judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal
No.2741/2023 (@SLP (CRL.) NO(S),4927 of 2023) Jamboo
Bhandari Vs. M.P. State Industrial Developement Corporation Ltd.
& Ors., decided on 04.09.2023.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-
complainant submits that complaint under Section 138 of the NI
Act against the petitioner was preferred in the year 2018 and vide
order dated 28.08.2023, learned trial court convicted the accused
under Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced him to undergo two
years' simple imprisonment and also imposed fine of
Rs.2,00,000/-. The complainant faced the agony of trial and now
again to face the agony of appeal. The amount imposed by
learned appellate court vide impugned order dated 07.10.2023 is
in accordance with law and provisions under Section 148 of NI Act.
The conditions imposed by the appellate court cannot be said to
be onerous. It is also argued that the accused-petitioner did not
pay a penny to the complainant regarding the alleged cheque,
therefore, the present criminal revision petition may be dismissed.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jamboo Bhandari
(supra) held that normally Appellate Court will be justified in
imposing the condition of deposit as provided in Section 148 of the
NI Act. However, in a case where the Appellate Court is satisfied
that the condition of deposit of 20% will be unjust or imposing
such a condition will amount to deprivation of the right of appeal
of the appellant, exception can be made for the reasons
specifically recorded. Hon'ble Supreme Court also opined that it is
always open for the Appellate Court to consider whether it is an
[2024:RJ-JP:4215] (3 of 3) [CRLR-1911/2023]
exceptional case which warrants grant of suspension of sentence
without imposing the condition of deposit of 20% of the
fine/compensation amount. Hon'ble Supreme Court also expressed
the view that if the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that it
is an exceptional case, the reasons for coming to the said
conclusion must be recorded.
I have gone through the impugned order, it is admitted that
against the present petitioner two appeals are pending before the
learned Sessions Judge under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and the
complaints were filed by the present respondent. It is also
apparent from the perusal of the petition and documents annexed
that complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the
petitioner was preferred in the year 2018. It is also relevant to
state that by way of impugned order, petitioner was directed to
deposit 20% amount within two months but petitioner did not
deposit the amount. It is also admitted that petitioner has not
tried to amicably settle the dispute, therefore, in view of the Court
there is no exceptional reason for which the impugned order
needs modification.
The revision petition devoid of any merits, hence dismissed.
All pending applications also stand dismissed.
(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J
57-Mohit
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
