[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Khivraj Jat vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:9978) on 24 February, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:9978]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 381/2025
Khivraj Jat S/o Mula Ram, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Sandarda,
Tehsil Sojat, Police Station Shivpura, District Pali (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Om Singh Rajpurohit S/o Ram Singh, R/o Birawas, Tehsil
Sojat, Police Station Shivpura, District Pali. (Raj)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Parwat Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA
Mr. Gajraj Singh, for the respondent
No.2
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
24/02/2026
1. The present criminal revision is directed against the
judgment dated 15.02.2025 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Sojat in Criminal Appeal No. 14/2022, whereby
the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sojat in Criminal Case No. 353/2016 for
the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
have been affirmed.
2. The grievance raised on behalf of the petitioner relates
primarily to the manner in which the appeal has been decided. It
is submitted that though the appeal assailed both conviction and
sentence, the learned appellate court, in the absence of the
appellant, affirmed the judgment of the trial court without
(Uploaded on 26/02/2026 at 04:03:57 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9978] (2 of 4) [CRLR-381/2025]
undertaking an independent re-appreciation of the evidence and
without dealing separately with the grounds urged in the
memorandum of appeal. According to the revisionist, the disposal
of the appeal, though described as being on merits, does not
reflect the nature of scrutiny contemplated under Section 386 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. This Court has examined the appellate judgment. The
learned appellate court has set out the factual background,
referred to the evidence led by the complainant, considered the
return memo reflecting "insufficient funds" and "signature differ",
dealt with the plea regarding service of statutory notice, adverted
to the payments made during the pendency of proceedings and
applied the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of
the Act. The appeal was not dismissed for default and the merits
have been addressed.
4. However, a criminal appeal against conviction carries with it
a substantive statutory right. The first appellate court is the final
court on facts and is expected to independently assess the entire
evidence and record its own conclusions. While the appellate
judgment discusses the issues raised, the reasoning substantially
affirms and endorses the findings of the trial court. The discussion
does not reflect a fresh and independent re-appraisal of the
evidence or a distinct evaluation of the defence pleas raised in
appeal.
5. The contention regarding dishonour on the ground of
"signature differ" has been noticed and answered by observing
(Uploaded on 26/02/2026 at 04:03:57 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9978] (3 of 4) [CRLR-381/2025]
that the accused did not deny his signature and that such ground
would not by itself exonerate him. The question of service of
notice has been dealt with by holding that the acknowledgment
bore the signature of the accused's brother residing with him. The
reliance on part-payments has been treated as indicative of
subsisting liability. These aspects have been considered, yet the
reasoning remains largely in concurrence with the trial court's
approach rather than an independent assessment of the material
on record.
6. On the question of sentence, though the quantum was under
challenge, the affirmation of punishment has been recorded
without separate and independent consideration of proportionality
or other relevant circumstances.
7. It is well settled that even where the appellant or his counsel
remains absent, the appellate court may proceed to decide the
appeal on merits. However, the principle of audi alteram partem,
which underlies fair adjudication, requires that the statutory right
of appeal be meaningfully exercised. The obligation of the
appellate court is not merely to record concurrence with the trial
court but to independently examine the record and render its own
findings. Where the reasoning reflects substantial affirmation
without distinct re-appreciation, the requirement of effective
appellate consideration may not stand fully satisfied.
8. In revisional jurisdiction, this Court would ordinarily be slow
to interfere where there are concurrent findings of fact. However,
since the first appellate court is the final court on facts, and as the
(Uploaded on 26/02/2026 at 04:03:57 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9978] (4 of 4) [CRLR-381/2025]
judgment does not sufficiently reflect an independent re-
evaluation of the evidence in the manner expected at that stage, it
would be appropriate that the appeal be reconsidered so that the
statutory exercise is carried out in its proper perspective.
9. Accordingly, the judgment dated 15.02.2025 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sojat in Criminal Appeal No.
14/2022 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned
appellate court for fresh disposal of the appeal in accordance with
law after affording opportunity of hearing to both sides and after
independently considering the grounds raised in the memorandum
of appeal.
10. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion
on the merits of the case and all issues are left open to be
considered by the appellate court.
11. The revision petition stands allowed in the above terms.
(FARJAND ALI),J
65-Pramod/-
(Uploaded on 26/02/2026 at 04:03:57 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
