Revision petition against concurrent conviction under Section 138 NI Act. Petitioner alleged cheque was stolen and notice unserved but failed to furnish admitted signatures for FSL comparison; statutory presumptions not rebutted. Court held revisional jurisdiction is limited and dismissed the 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.
[2025:RJ-JP:37791]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 299/2019
Jitendra Narchal S/o Tilak Raj, R/o Behind Sewa Sdan Narchal Poultry Farm Hari Bhau Upaddhyay Nagar Ajmer Raj. (At Present In Central Jail Ajmer)
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Mr. |
Amitabh Jatav, Adv. with Rajendra Singh Rajawat, Adv. |
|---|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Ms. |
Lokesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. with Anzum Parveen, Adv. |
| Mr. | Naresh Kumar Gupta, PP |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR
| Order | ||
|---|---|---|
| Reserved on | :: | 16/09 /2025 |
| Pronounced on | :: | 09/ 10/2025 |
[2025:RJ-JP:37791]
[CRLR-299/2019]
(2 of 5)
impugned judgments passed by both the Courts below are contrary to the facts as well as the applicable law and, therefore, not sustainable. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further submitted that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the material available before it as per established principles of law. The cheque in question was dishonored by the Bank on the ground that “drawers Signatures Differs” but the signature present on the cheque in question is not of the petitioner, in fact, the cheque was stolen by the complainant from the house of the petitioner and he has misused the same. Learned counsel argued that both the learned Courts have further failed to consider that the alleged notice was not served upon the petitioner. It was argued that both the Courts have committed serious irregularities in convicting the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
[2025:RJ-JP:37791]
[CRLR-299/2019]
(3 of 5)
(4 of 5)
[2025:RJ-JP:37791]
[CRLR-299/2019]
evidence is ignored and there is non-compliance with provisions of law, or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely.
Chander & Anr. , (2012) 9 SCC 460 , while explaining the scope of Section 397 Cr.P.C., held that:-
“9. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinise the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. If one looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits.
Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be against an interim or interlocutory order. The Court has to keep in mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex facie. Where the Court is dealing with the question as to whether the charge has been framed properly and in accordance with law in a given case, it may be reluctant to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction unless the case substantially falls within the categories aforestated. Even framing of charge is a much advanced stage in the proceedings under the CrPC.”
(5 of 5)
[2025:RJ-JP:37791]
[CRLR-299/2019]
Section 397 prohibits the Court from exercising the powers of Revision, even the powers under subsection 1 thereof should be exercised very sparingly and only where the decision under challenge is grossly erroneous, or there is noncompliance of the provisions of law, or the finding recorded by the trial court is based on no evidence, or material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely by framing the charge. The Court exercising Revisional Jurisdiction under Section 397 should be extremely circumspect in interfering with the order framing the charge, and could not have interfered with the order passed by the Trial Court dismissing the application for modification of the charge under Section 216 Cr.P.C., which order otherwise would fall in the category of an interlocutory order.”
(PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J
Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-50
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court in revision could interfere with concurrent convictions under Section 138 NI Act where findings were not perverse or illegal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
K. Ravi vs. State of Tamil NaduRelied on
K. Ravi vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2024 SC 4074 · Who else cites this
Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander & Anr.Explained¶9
Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander & Anr., (2012) 9 SCC 460 · Who else cites this
6 provisions across 3 enactments
Jitendra Narchal
State of Rajasthan through PP
Vinod Narchal
Pramil Kumar Mathur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
