The petitioner filed a criminal revision petition challenging his conviction and sentence for cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, after his appeal was dismissed. The High Court found no error in the lower courts' appreciation of evidence regarding insuf.
The present criminal revision petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 7 / 2016
Dinesh Sharma S/o Late Shri Anandi Lal Sharma, by caste Brahmin, aged about 36 years, R/o Plot No.109, Dinesh Chambers, Shri Ram Nagar-B, Khirni Phatak Road, Opp. Maharana Pratap School, Kalwar Road, Jaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
2/1 Ramesh Kumar Jain S/o Late Shri Genda Lal Jain
2/3 Anil Jain S/o Late Shri Genda Lal Jain Both Resident of Plot No.5, Vaibhav Nagar, Hathi Babu Ka Bagh, BaniPark, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Keshav Agarwal Adv.
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Judgment
13/12/2017
Petitioner had faced trial in a complaint filed against him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 with regard to dishonour of cheque in question. Trial Court ordered the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Appellate Court. Hence, the present petition by the petitioner.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.
Petitioner has filed the present petition without surrendering
(2 of 2)
[CRLR-7/2016]
to undergo the sentence after dismissal of his appeal by the Appellate Court.
Case of the complainant was that the cheque in question issued by the petitioner had been dishonoured by the Bank when it was presented for encashment. Petitioner had failed to pay the cheque amount in question to the complainant despite issuance of notice. Cheque in question was issued in favour of Genda Lal Jain. Complaint was filed by Genda Lal Jain, but during the pendency of the proceedings, he died and his legal representatives were brought on record. From the evidence led by the complainant, it was established that the cheque in question had been issued by the petitioner and had been disnonoured by the bank when it was presented for encashment on account of insufficiency of funds. The plea taken by the petitioner that the cheque had been issued by way of security, was not established during trial. Both the Courts below after appreciating the evidence on record, have held that the petitioner was guilty of commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any misreading of evidence by the Courts below.
Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances discussed above, no ground for interference by his Court is made out.
Dismissed.
(SABINA)J.
S.Kumawat/d-37
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dinesh Sharma
State of Rajasthan
Genda Lal Jain
Ramesh Kumar Jain
Anil Jain
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
