Allowed

Mahendra Kumar Jain v. Dilip Soni

Rajasthan HC1 Aug 2023CRLLA/116/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur condoned a 41-day delay in filing a criminal leave to appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The court found reasonable grounds for the appeal, noting the appellant's claim regarding the dishonour of a cheque. Leave to appeal was allowed.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay allowed; leave to prefer appeal granted.

Mahendra Kumar Jain Vs Dilip Soni — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Crml Leave To Appeal No. 116/2023

¶3

Mahendra Kumar Jain S/o Shri Rarasmal Jain, Aged About 61 Years, R/o 9 Vardhaman Colony Pali Raj.

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Dilip Soni S/o Shri Narayan Soni, R/o 17 Pani Darwaza Pali Raj.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Appellant(s) : Ms. Shobha Prabhakar

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶10

Order

¶11

01/08/2023

¶12

Heard on an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of Limitation Act moved at the behest of the petitioner, it is contended that the petitioner was not present on the date of passing the judgment of acquittal and it was informed to him after a long lapse of time by his counsel, thereafter, he obtained the certified copy on 23.11.2022 and thereafter without unnecessary delay, the leave to appeal application has been preferred. It is further contended that the delay was not made deliberately or willfully rather it occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner, therefore, the instant application could not be filed within the stipulated period.

¶13

Considering the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, a lenient view is taken. The application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed. The delay of 41 days in filing the instant criminal leave to appeal application is condoned.

¶14

The leave to appeal be treated within the limitation.

¶15

[CRLLA-116/2023]

¶16

(2 of 2)

¶17

Upon perusal of the judgment impugned, it is revealing that a cheque was allegedly given by the accused-respondent to the petitioner, which upon presentation got dishonoured owing to “Opening Balance Insufficient”. There seems reasonable grounds to allow the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the impugned judgment.

¶18

Accordingly, the instant application seeking leave to appeal is allowed. The memo of leave to appeal application shall be treated and registered as an appeal.

¶19

Office to proceed.

¶20

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶21

120-divya/-

Mahendra Kumar Jain v. Dilip Soni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Kumar Jain v. Dilip Soni

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

Sanjeev Kumar @ Sanju S/O Shri Nathu Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Balram Son of Jamura Vs State of Rajasthan

Bablu Kumar Son of Balchand Vs State of Rajasthan

Vijesh Kumar Jain Vs State of Rajasthan

Bagga Singh Vs Neetu Kamra

Khemaram Vs State of Rajasthan