Single Judge criminal revision disposing conviction under Negotiable Instruments Act. Court condoned 8-day delay but dismissed petition finding no illegality in lower court judgment upholding sentence and compensation.
Delay of 8 days condoned. Criminal revision petition 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 AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 206/2018
Smt. Sudha Joshi W/o Shri Balmukund Joshi, R/o Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Bhilwara.
----Petitioner
Versus
Jagdish Mochi Proprietor M/s. Ganesh Shoe Maker, R/o Near Old Education Department, Bhadada Bagh, Bhilwara.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Usman Ghani For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Order
23/10/2018
This criminal revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved with the judgment dated 1.11.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bhilwara (for short ‘the appellate court’) whereby it has decided two appeals No.32/2013 and 36/2013 preferred by the respondent. The appellate court has partly accepted the appeals preferred by the respondent and while confirming the judgment dated 7.5.2012 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate N.I. Act Cases, Bhilwara (for short ‘the trial court’) in Regular Criminal Case No.792/2011 has upheld the conviction of the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, however, has set aside the sentence awarded by the trial court while directing the respondent to pay a compensation to the tune of Rs.1,35,000/- which is to be paid to the petitioner.
(2 of 2)
[CRLR-206/2018]
The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner with a delay of 8 days. In the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it is stated that due to some calculation mistake by the counsel of the petitioner, the present revision petition could not be filed within limitation. It is also stated that the mistake is bonafide and not intentional, therefore, the delay may be condoned.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the averments made in the application, this Court is inclined to condone the delay of 8 days in filing this revision petition, however, after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the impugned order, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgment dated 1.11.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bhilwara and, therefore, this criminal revision petition is dismissed.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
Babulal/33
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay of eight days in filing the revision petition should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Whether the impugned judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge upholding conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act suffered from any illegality.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Sudha Joshi
Jagdish Mochi
VIJAY BISHNOI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
