[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Amarjeet Kaur vs Ramswaroop (2026:Rj-Jd:2638) on 15 January, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:2638]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 38/2026
Amarjeet Kaur W/o Shri Jaspal Singh, Aged About 45 Years,
Resident Of Sikhon Ka Gurudwara, Village Ratanpura, Tehsil
Rajgarh, District Churu.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Ramswaroop S/o Shri Kurda Ram, Resident Of Village
Mikhala Changoi, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu.
2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Pareek
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Rajpurohit, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
15/01/2026
1. The petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 25.11.2025
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Taranagar, District
Churu (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned appellate Court') in
Criminal Appeal No.19/2024, whereby, his appeal has been
dismissed for want of prosecution solely on the ground that he
failed to deposit the 20% amount of compensation ordered him to
pay by the learned Appellate Court.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the
order under challenge.
3. It is transpiring that the petitioner was tried and finally
convicted for committing an offence under Section 138 of the NI
Act and sentenced to suffer two years imprisonment and to
deposit Rs.18,00,000/- as a compensation to the complainant and
(Uploaded on 21/01/2026 at 04:28:29 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:2638] (2 of 3) [CRLR-38/2026]
there was a default clause of further to undergo three months
simple imprisonment, upon failure of depositing the compensation
amount.
4. The petitioner preferred an appeal challenging the judgment
of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Judicial
Magistrate, Taranagar, District Churu (hereinafter referred to as
'learned trial Court'), vide order dated 29.07.2024. The appeal
came to be registered as Criminal Regular Appeal No.19/2024,
and along with the appeal, he also preferred an application for
suspension of sentence under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C., which
came to be allowed by the learned trial Court and the petitioner
was directed to remain on bail during the course of appeal. While
suspending the sentence of appellant, he was also ordered to pay
20% of the compensation as awarded by the learned trial Court as
a condition precedent. There was a stipulated time period for
depositing the amount, but the petitioner failed to deposit the
ordered amount within the prescribed period, and therefore, the
learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal itself, vide the order
under challenge.
5. This Court observes that an appeal preferred against the
judgment of conviction and the order of sentence cannot be
dismissed for want of prosecution and this proposition is well
settled now in light of plethora of judicial pronouncements made
by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. The non-deposition of the
compensation amount ordered by the learned appellate Court
cannot be a ground for dismissing the appeal itself.
6. At the behest, the effect of non-deposition may be the
withdrawal of the order of suspension of sentence and sending the
(Uploaded on 21/01/2026 at 04:28:29 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:2638] (3 of 3) [CRLR-38/2026]
appellant to prison during the course of hearing of the appeal, but
in no stretch of imagination, such an appeal can be dismissed
without touching the niceties of the matter, without making further
appreciation of legal and factual aspect of the material brought on
record during the trial. The learned appellate Court owes a duty
under Section 386 of the CrPC to go through the entire material.
7. The dismissal of appeal in limine in the fashion as done by
the learned Appellate Court is not a way recognized under law.
Thus, the impugned order dated 25.11.2025 is bad in the eyes of
law and cannot be sustained.
8. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. The order dated
25.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Taranagar, District Churu in Criminal Appeal No.19/2024 is hereby
quashed and set aside.
9. The matter is remanded back to the learned Court of Appeal
to re-register the appeal to its original number and to hear the
appellant on the merits and then to pass a well reasoned speaking
order.
10. Stay petition stands disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
254-Anil/-
(Uploaded on 21/01/2026 at 04:28:29 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
