In a cheque bounce case where cheques for Rs.3 lac bounced, the petitioner sought to deposit only 10% due to lack of funds. The High Court found no error in the lower courts' judgments requiring deposit of at least 50% and dismissed the revision petition.
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. 275/2020
Sanjay Kumar S/o Shri Anand Kumar, Aged About 48 Years, R/o House No.374/38, Indrapuri Colony, Garhi Maliyan Road, Johnsganj, Ajmer. (At Present Confined At Central Jail Ajmer)
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abdul Wahid Naqvi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arvind Bhadu, PP Mr. Khurshid Ahmed Khan – for complainant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Order
02/06/2020
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner does not have any money for depositing and submits that 10% of the amount directed by the trial court may be allowed to be deposited with the condition to release him.
Learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that taking into consideration the pandemic, the accused-petitioner be directed to deposit atleast 50% of the amount within a period of three months after release to which learned counsel for the petitioner does not agree and he says that he does not have money.
I have considered the submissions as above.
(2 of 2)
[CRLR-275/2020]
It is a case where cheques of amount of Rs.3 lac had bounced in the year 2007 and the amount has not been repaid even upto 2018 and even as now the petitioner has refused to deposit even 50% of the amount.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has been unable to show any discrepancy in the judgment of the trial court. He has however pointed out that 20 cheques were lost. However, this court finds that no FIR has been exhibited. After having perused the record and the judgments passed by the courts below, this court does not find any error.
Keeping in view the position of law and that admittedly the cheques issued by the accused-petitioner having bounced, I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgments passed by the trial court as well as the appellate court and they are accordingly upheld.
The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J
FATEH RAJ BOHRA /6-68
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to allow the petitioner to deposit only 10% of the amount and release him on bail given his financial inability.
Whether the trial court erred in holding the petitioner must deposit 50% of the bounced cheque amount as a condition for bail.
Whether the revision petition should be accepted to interfere with the impugned judgments.
Sanjay Kumar
State Of Rajasthan
Prahalad Singh
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
