Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mahaveer Solanki (Khatik) vs Smt. Snehlata Choudhary ... on 21 April, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:19148]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 11/2023
1. Mahaveer Solanki (Khatik) S/o Shri Hukmi Chand Ji
Solanki, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Labour Colony, House
No. S/2/28, Police Station - Pratap Nagar, Bhilwara, For
M/s Manisha Nal Pipe Stores, Bhilwara.
2. Smt. Anita W/o Mahaveer Solaki (Khatik), Aged About 48
Years, R/o Labour Colony, House No. S/2/28, Police
Station Pratap Nagar, Bhilwara.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Smt. Snehlata Choudhary W/o Shri Satish Kumar
Choudhary, R/o 17-A-3, Bapu Nagar, Police Station -
Pratap Nagar, Bhilwara.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashwini Kumar Babel
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sonu Manawat, PP
Mr. Rajendra Charan
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
21/04/2025
Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners
against the order dated 15.11.2022, passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Bhilwara in Cr. Appeal
No.217/2019 whereby the learned appellate court dismissed the
application of the petitioners filed under Section 391 Cr.P.C.
Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were
convicted and sentenced by the learned trial court for offence
under Section 138 of NI Act. Against their conviction, the
petitioners preferred an appeal, which is pending consideration
[2025:RJ-JD:19148] (2 of 4) [CRLR-11/2023]
before the appellate court. During the pendency of the appeal, an
application was filed by the petitioners under Section 391 Cr.P.C.
for taking additional documents on record. Counsel submits that
during the pendency of the appeal, the petitioners sought
information from their Banker, the SBI, Branch Industrial Area,
Biliya, Bhilwara regarding the authorized signatory and individual
responsible for the bank account. In pursuance thereof, the
Branch Manager issued a certificate confirming that the petitioner
No.1 is the sole proprietor of the firm and the only authorized
signatory of the bank account. Consequently, it was asserted that
the petitioner No.2 is neither a partner in the firm, nor an
authorized signatory of the bank account and therefore, she has
no liability concerning the proprietorship firm. In these
circumstances, the petitioner No.2 cannot be deemed culpable for
the offence under Section 138 of NI Act. Thus, the counsel
characterized the certificate as an essential document for a just
decision of the case. However, the learned appellate court without
appreciating the aforesaid circumstances, dismissed the
application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. in a cursory manner. Thus,
the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the respondent
No.2 have opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the
petitioners and submitted that the document in question ought to
have been filed by the petitioners during the trial proceedings in
the trial court. The conviction of the petitioners was recorded on
07.09.2019 by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (NI Act
Cases) No.1, Bhilwara and have since been pursuing the appeal
against the order of conviction before the appellate court. Notably,
[2025:RJ-JD:19148] (3 of 4) [CRLR-11/2023]
the petitioners have filed about four or five applications before the
appellate court, all of which have been dismissed with costs.
Furthermore, a revision against the said order was also dismissed
as withdrawn by this court. The counsel contended that the
repeated filing of similar applications by the petitioners indicates
an intention to delay the proceedings rather than a genuine need
to introduce new evidence. Thus, it is prayed that the revision
petition may be dismissed.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned order as well as material available on record.
The conviction of the petitioners was recorded by the trial
court on 07.09.2019 for offence under Section 138 of NI Act.
Against their conviction, the petitioners preferred an appeal, which
is pending consideration before the appellate court. During the
pendency of the appeal, on 17.02.2022 the petitioners requested
to provide the information from their bank regarding the
authorized signatory of the bank account and the said information
was received in the form of certificate on the same day. It has
been observed by the appellate court while passing the impugned
order that the petitioners could have obtained this certificate from
the Bank at an earlier stage of trial. However, the petitioners failed
to give any satisfactory explanation for the delay in obtaining the
certificate. Notably, the petitioners did not file the application at
any stage of the trial when the trial was proceeded. Previously,
other applications have already been dismissed by the appellate
court as well as this Court. It appears that the petitioners have
been persistently submitting such applications primarily to prolong
the proceedings.
[2025:RJ-JD:19148] (4 of 4) [CRLR-11/2023]
The learned appellate court has committed no error in
dismissing the application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. At the
appellate stage, the certificate in question cannot be allowed to be
taken on record. The impugned order is just and proper
warranting no interference from this Court.
Hence, the revision petition is dismissed. Stay application
and pending applications, if any, also dismissed.
The appellate court is directed to decide the appeal as early
as possible.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
78-MS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
