Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mohan Lal vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:9300) on 14 February, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:9300]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 842/2023
Mohan Lal S/o Shri Jai Lal, Aged About 70 Years, R/o Village
Bhompura, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. M/s Mahendra Singh Vinod Kumar, Shop No. 67-B, New
Dhan Mandi, Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan)
Through Its Proprietor Krishan Lal S/o Shri Nanu Ram, B/
c Jat, R/o Ward No. 13, Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh
(Rajasthan)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Trilok Joshi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shree Ram Choudhary, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
14/02/2025
1. Three separate applications (IA Nos.03/2024, 04/2024 &
01/2025) have been filed on behalf of the petitioner for early
listing of the petition.
2. The aforesaid applications are disposed of.
3. The petitioner happens to be an accused of a prosecution
under Section 138 of NI Act. He was convicted and sentenced by
the learned trial Court vide the judgment dated 17.11.2017. Being
aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment, he preferred an appeal
bearing Appeal No.74/2017. During the course of appeal, he
moved an application under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. to summon the
complainant Krishan Lal again for the purpose of his re-
examination on certain grounds. It was argued that since some
new facts had come on record during examination of D.W.-1 Raj
Kumar in which documents as Ex.-D/1 to D/8 were tendered into
evidence and these documents were not available at the time of
[2025:RJ-JD:9300] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-842/2023]
examination of A.W.-1, therefore, his recalling would be essential
in the interest of justice.
4. The learned Appellate Court rejected the application on the
ground that due opportunities were given to the petitioner during
the course of the trial and, therefore, held that there was no force
in the application and dismissed the same in the order under
assail.
5. I have also pondered over the issue raised by the petitioner.
As per the petitioner himself, the documents as Ex.D/1 to D/8 and
the testimony of D.W.-1 (Raj Kumar) had taken on record by the
learned trial Court before hearing the case finally on merits and at
that juncture, there was an opportunity with the petitioner to
move such an application for recalling of the complainant under
Section 311 of Cr.P.C. but that opportunity was not availed of. The
appeal was preferred in the month of November-December, 2017
and for around five years, the appeal had been pending in the
Court of Appeal and whereafter on 07.05.2018 the petitioner
moved the aforesaid application. This Court is of the view that the
bona fides of the petitioner were not clear. Otherwise also, this
Court does not deem it appropriate to pass an order for recalling
of the A.W.-1 Krishan Lal again. He has been examined in the trial.
No case is made out for interference.
6. In this view of the matter, the instant petition is dismissed.
7. Stay petition stands disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
77-divya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
