Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Sarita Dalmiya vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:50613) on 24 November, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:50613]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                     S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 81/2025

Sarita Dalmiya W/o Shri Shiv Gopal Dalmiya, Aged About 49
Years, R/o M-2, Smridi Complex, Sardarpura C Road, Near Paras
Blood Bank, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.
                                                                        ----Petitioner
                                        Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.       Shri Ateet Sharma S/o Shri Surendra Sharma, R/o C-40,
         Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur.
                                                                     ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)             :     Mr. Roop Kishore Rathi
For Respondent(s)             :     Mr. Hathi Singh Jodha, PP
                                    Mr. Prithvi Raj Singh Balot
                                    Mr. Hanwant Singh Balot



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order

(i) Arguments concluded on: 09/09/2025

(ii) Judgment reserved on: 09/09/2025

(iii) Full judgment/Operative part: Full judgment

(iv) Judgment pronounced on : 24/11/2025

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of

BNSS (482 CrPC) against the order dated 09.12.2024 passed by

Additional Session Judge No.3, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Cr. Appl

No.646/2017 vide which the application filed by the petitioner

under Order 32 Rule 7 of General Rules (Civil and Criminal), 2018,

was dismissed with costs.

2. Bereft of elaborate details briefly stated the facts necessary

for the disposal of this petition are that the complainant lent Rs.

(Uploaded on 24/11/2025 at 07:19:22 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:50613] (2 of 7) [CRLMP-81/2025]

9,50,000 to the petitioner as they were acquainted with each

other, and the petitioner agreed to repay the same within 2

months. After the expiry of 2 months, the petitioner did not return

the said amount. After multiple reminders, the petitioner issued a

cheque of Rs. 9,50,000, but the same was dishonoured on account

of 'Funds Insufficient' when presented for encashment.

Subsequently, the complainant-respondent, through his counsel,

served notice upon the petitioner, but despite receiving the same,

the petitioner neither replied to the notice nor did she pay the

amount within the stipulated period of 15 days. Consequently, the

complainant filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court, and

the learned learned Trial Court framed the charges under section

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, held the petitioner guilty

and sentenced the petitioner vide order dated 15.11.2017 to

undergo simple imprisonment of one and a half year and a fine of

Rs. 12,48,000, and additional imprisonment of six months in case

of default.

3. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order dated

15.11.2017, and during the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner

moved an application in the Appellate Court stating that the rules

of marking of exhibits as laid under General Rules (Civil and

Criminal) [hereby referred as "General Rules"] were not duly

followed. The presiding officer failed to mark the exhibits on

documents with his initials, designation, date, and court seal;

therefore, the evidence is not admissible in court.

4. The Appellate Court vide order dated 10.10.24 allowed the

application and remitted the matter back to the learned Trial

(Uploaded on 24/11/2025 at 07:19:22 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:50613] (3 of 7) [CRLMP-81/2025]

Court, directing that the exhibits shall be marked according to the

provisions mentioned in General Rules, and return the documents

to the Appellate Court within 7 days.

5. In compliance with the Appellate Court's directives, the

learned Trial Court marked and put the date "04.11.15" on all the

previously marked documents for submission to the Appellate

Court. The petitioner raised an objection, contending that the

learned Trial Court marked exhibit on the documents without

issuing prior notice and that the documents were marked

backdated. The Appellate Court overruled the objection, imposed

costs, and noted that no specific direction was given to the

learned Trial Court to issue notice. The Appellate Court further

clarified that the authenticity of the presiding officer's signatures

would be adjudicated during the final hearing, and observed that

the petitioner was unduly delaying the trial by filing superfluous

applications.

6. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this court with the

following prayer:

"It is therefore prayed that this Criminal Misc.

Petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned

order dated 09.12.2024 passed by A.D.J. No.3

Jodhpur Metropolitan in Cr. Appeal No. 646/2017

may kindly be set aside and the application filed

by the petitioner may very kindly be allowed, any

other appropriate relief, order or direction which is

deemed fit and proper may very kindly be passed

in favour of the petitioner."

(Uploaded on 24/11/2025 at 07:19:22 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:50613] (4 of 7) [CRLMP-81/2025]

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public

Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

8. As per the statement of the accused petitioner recorded

under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the petitioner stated that the Cheque

was obtained from her by her father-in-law, Shri Jaidutt Sharma,

but the complainant misused the said Cheque, and for illegally

grabbing the money from the petitioner, this false complaint has

been filed by the complainant against the petitioner.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

documentary evidence, Ex.1 Original Cheque, Ex.2 Return Memo,

Ex.3 Notice, Ex.4 Postal Receipt and Ex.5 Original Certificate

issued by the Postal Department were exhibited. Learned counsel

for the petitioner also submits that the mandatory procedure laid

down under Order 32 Rule 7 of General Rules has not been

followed and while exhibiting and marking the documents, the

Presiding Officer has not marked any Exhibit with his initials,

designation and date, along with the seal of the Court and,

therefore, the said documents are not admissible in evidence and

thus the said documents would be liable to be placed in Part D of

the record of the Court as per the mandatory provisions of Order

32 Rule 9 of General Rules.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Order 20

Rule 33 of General Rules mandates the Presiding Officer to sign

and date the document at the time of its admission, and that

retrospective signing defeats the very purpose of the Rule. It was

contended that the manner in which the signatures were

appended, without notice to the petitioner and with a back-dated

(Uploaded on 24/11/2025 at 07:19:22 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:50613] (5 of 7) [CRLMP-81/2025]

endorsement, creates an irregularity and vitiates the entire

evidentiary process.

11. Further the learned counsel emphasised that Order 20 Rule

33 of General Rules is mandatory and leaves no scope for

retrospective regularisation. It was argued that the object of the

General Rules, is to maintain the integrity of judicial records by

ensuring that the Court contemporaneously records its admission

of a document. A later signing, with a manufactured or backdated

endorsement, directly defeats this objective and compromises the

evidentiary value of the documents. It was further contended that

the petitioner has been prejudiced because the learned Trial Court,

while undertaking this process behind the back of the petitioner,

denied her the opportunity to raise objections at the appropriate

stage or to insist that proper procedure under the Rules be

followed.

12. Per Contra, Learned counsel for the respondent contended

that the learned Trial Court has duly complied with the Appellate

Court's directions by signing and dating all the exhibited

documents as per the procedural requirements. There was no

mandate in the Appellate Court's order requiring notices to the

parties.

It is further contended that Order 20 Rule 33 of General

Rules, nowhere provides that such procedural compliance must be

carried out in the presence of the parties. The said direction was

administrative, not adversarial in nature.

13. Learned counsel for the respondent further contends that the

petitioner has failed to demonstrate any prejudice suffered due to

(Uploaded on 24/11/2025 at 07:19:22 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:50613] (6 of 7) [CRLMP-81/2025]

the way compliance was made. The exhibits remain the same as

before; only a formality of signing was performed.

14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record, this Court finds no substance in the

present application. The record reveals that vide order dated

10.10.2024, learned Appellate Court had merely directed the

learned Trial Court to ensure compliance with the provisions of

Order 20 Rule 33 of the General Rules (Civil & Criminal), 2018 by

affixing signatures and dates of the Presiding Officer on the

documents already exhibited during the course of trial. No

direction was issued to the learned Trial Court to issue notice to

the parties or to carry out such compliance in their presence. The

said direction was purely administrative and procedural in nature,

meant only to rectify a clerical omission, and did not reopen or in-

troduce any new evidence affecting the rights of the parties.. The

learned Trial Court, while forwarding the record after putting the

signatures and dates on the exhibited documents, has substan-

tially complied with the order dated 10.10.2024.

15. The Bombay High Court in Mr Rajendranath Ganesh Us-

gaonkar V. Deendayal Nagari (CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICA-

TION NO. 43 OF 2019), held as under -

"26....This Court is of the opinion that the failure on the part of the Trial Court in the facts and cir- cumstances of the present case, to mark the doc- uments produced by the Respondent no.1 as ex- hibits, at worst can be termed as an error/omis- sion/irregularity, but there is nothing to show that the same occasioned failure of justice. The Appel- late Court was fully justified in holding that the Applicant failed to demonstrate prejudice caused to him...."

(Uploaded on 24/11/2025 at 07:19:22 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:50613] (7 of 7) [CRLMP-81/2025]

16. The petitioner contends that the absence of notice or the

mention of an earlier date on the marked exhibits vitiates the en-

tire proceedings, which is misconceived and untenable in law. It is

well settled that mere procedural irregularities or curable defects

in the mode of marking documents do not render the evidence in-

admissible nor vitiate the conviction, unless prejudice is demon-

strably caused to any of the parties.

17. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate

any prejudice caused to her on account of the procedural act of

the learned Trial Court in affixing signatures and dates on the