Dismissed

Raja v. Narendra Lohar

Rajasthan HC23 Mar 2017CRLLA/44/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment condones a delay of 1400 days in filing a criminal leave to appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's acquittal of the respondent for cheque bounce as the appellant admitted full payment during cross-examination.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 1400 days condoned; Criminal Leave to Appeal dismissed upholding the acquittal of the respondent.

Raja Vs Narendra Lohar — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B.Crml Leave To Appeal No. 44 / 2016

¶3

Raja Chaudhary S/o Mohanlal Chaudhary, Proprietor M/s Sahil enterprises 206 IInd Floor Krishna Plaza, Hazareshwar Mahadev Colony, Court circle Udaipur.

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Narendra Lohar s/o Banshidhar Lohar Proprietor M/s Om computer & Xerox, Nyay Marg, Court Circle, Udaipur.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anuj Sehlot.

¶9

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Meenu Purohit.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶11

Judgment / Order

¶12

23/03/2017

¶13

The matter comes up for consideration of application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act with a prayer for condoning the delay of 1400 days in filing the present appeal. No reply to the application has been filed on behalf of the respondent.

¶14

After going through the application filed by the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it is clear that the delay of 1400 days have been satisfactorily explained. Hence, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed and the delay of 1400 days is condoned.

¶15

With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties this appeal is heard finally.

¶16

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had filed a complaint against the respondent for the offence punishable under

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[CRLLA-44/2016]

¶19

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act while contending that he is proprietor of M/S Om Computer and Xerox situated at Udaipur. It is alleged that he sold one Xerox Machine M-24 to the respondent for Rs.5,50,000/- on 10.12.2005 and out of the said amount of Rs.5,50,000/- a part of payment was made by the respondent and for the remaining amount of Rs.1,94,000/-, a cheque bearing No.501498 was given to the petitioner on 29.05.2006, however, when the said cheque was presented in the bank, the same was dishonored and returned with the remark “stop payment”.

¶20

Cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act was taken by the trial court against the respondent and he was charged for the said offence. The petitioner has examined himself as PW-1 whereas one witness Neeraj Sharma was produced in defence.

¶21

The learned trial court after taking into consideration the evidence produced by the prosecution has concluded that during his cross-examination, the appellant has admitted that he received an amount of Rs.5,46,694/- from the respondent on 10.12.2005. The trial court has observed that looking to the said statement of the petitioner, it is clear that only amount of Rs.3,306/- is due against the respondent. It is further observed that in his crossexamination the appellant has also stated that he did not remember that the amount of Rs.3,306/- was paid in cash by the respondent on 19.12.2005. The trial court has therefore observed that the appellant has failed to prove that an amount of Rs.1,94,000/- was due against the respondent in relation to the

¶22

(3 of 3)

¶23

[CRLLA-44/2016]

¶24

Xerox Machine M-24 purchased by him for the consideration of Rs.5,50,000/-.

¶25

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned judgment, this Court is of the opinion that when the petitioner has himself admitted in his cross-examination regarding payment of whole amount of the Xerox Machine M-24 purchased by the respondent, the trial court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the accused respondent for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

¶26

In view of the above, no case for interference is made out.

¶27

Hence, this criminal leave to appeal is dismissed.

¶28

(VIJAY BISHNOI)J.

¶29

Gaurav

Raja v. Narendra Lohar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raja v. Narendra Lohar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Roopa Ram Vs State and Ors.

Nathu Lal Vs State

Sartaj Singh @ Taja Vs State

Mukesh Vs State

Shankar Lal Vs State and Anr.

Jdvvnl Vs Sohan Lal