Dismissed

Jagdish Prajapati v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC22 Aug 2024Cr.Rev./1792/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision against dismissal of a cheque dishonour complaint under Section 138 NI Act and Section 504 IPC. The trial and appellate courts found sending and service of the legal notice unproved. Delay of 40 days was condoned, but the High Court found no illegality or perversity and dismissed the revision.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 40 days condoned; criminal revision dismissed and pending interlocutory applications closed.

Jagdish Prajapati Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Cr. Rev. No. 1792 of 2017

¶3

Jagdish Prajapati, S/o Late Gurudayal Prajapati, R/o Village – Tetariya Tola, Madangundi, P.O. & P.S.- Chandwara, District – Koderma … … Petitioner Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand

¶5

Rajesh Paswan S/o Horil Paswan, R/o Village – Madangundi, P.O. & P.S.- Chandwara, District - Koderma.

¶6

… … Opposite Parties

¶7

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶9

--For the Petitioner : Ms. Rishi Bharti, Advocate For the State : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, Advocate ---

¶10

08 /22.08.2024 I.A. No.2169 of 2020

¶11

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶12

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a petition seeking condonation of delay of 40 days has been filed being I.A. No.2169 of 2020. She has referred to the paragraph nos.4 to 6 of the interlocutory application.

¶13

3. Upon going through the petition for condonation of delay and being satisfied, the delay in filing the criminal revision is hereby condoned.

¶14

Cr. Rev. No.1792 of 2017

¶15

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued the case on merit.

¶16

5. This criminal revision has been filed against the judgment dated 10.08.2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No.19 of 2016 by which the judgment dated 22.12.2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Koderma in Complaint Case No.266 of 2012 has been upheld. The learned Judicial Magistrate had dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and section 504 of IPC.

¶17

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the legal presumption in connection with issuance of cheque has not been properly considered by the learned courts. The judgment passed by the

¶18

learned trial court reveals that the complainant had exhibited four documentary evidences. Exhibit 1 and 1/1 were the original cheques; exhibit 2 was dishonored slip and exhibit 3 was the carbon copy of the legal notice. The order reflects that the complainant did not produce any documents with regard to sending or serving of the legal notice. The learned trial court has specifically recorded the findings as follows:

¶19

“As, in the the instant case, both the cheques dated 29.01.2012 and 27.02.2012 have been shown to be dis-honoured on 27.03.2012, the legal notice was sent on 29.03.2012 and the complainant was filed on 26.04.2012. Here is a gap in the complainant's story, as neither the sending of the legal notice nor the serving of the notice has been proved by the complainant (as the complainant also could not adduce any postal receipt or acknowledgement slip of th same). Further, it we presume, "the deemed service of notice" as per ruling in Ram Pukar Pandey Vs. State of Jharkhand, 2013 (2) BCJ 144C, it would be deemed under clause 27 of the General Clauses Act that the same has been served on 29.04.2012 and thereby the complainant filed on 26.04.2015, is prematured claim and has not filed within Fifteen days from 29.04.2012, so not within time. Hence, at this point also the complainant could not prove his case, as barred by the Provision of N. 1. Act, itself, as the complainant could not be able to put forward that the legal notice was

¶20

(i) rightly added,

¶21

(ii) through proper channel or that

¶22

(iii) within due course of time.

¶23

However, the defence could not support his case but the complainant himself has been able to assassinate his own version, as neither the ingredients of Sec. 138 of N. 1. Act have been fulfilled, nor the complainant has been able to prove the legal debt liability against the accused as well as the ingredients of Sec. 504 of IPC have not been proved by the complainant.”

¶24

7. This Court has specifically put a query to the learned counsel for the petitioner, who has also confirmed that the sending of legal notice and service of legal notice have not been substantiated by filing any document/evidence to that effect.

¶25

8. The learned appellate court has also referred to the aforesaid four exhibits and recorded the argument of the accused that the complainant never sent any notice through registered post to the accused and failed to adduce the postal receipt as evidence. Admittedly, the complainant did not adduce postal receipt as evidence. 9. The learned appellate court also considered the materials on record and dismissed the appeal.

¶26

¶27

10. This Court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments rejecting the complaint and accordingly, this criminal revision is hereby dismissed.

¶28

11. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands closed.

¶29

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶30

Saurav

¶31

Jagdish Prajapati v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish Prajapati v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sitaram Soni And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Naresh Mahato Alias Naresh Kumar Mahato Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Shankar Rajak Vs the State of Jharkhand

Miss Rimjhim Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanjeev Kumar Mishra Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Smt Sikha Samuel Alias Shikha Samuel Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.