Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1643 (RAJ)

Mohd. Aarif Moyal Churu v. State of Rajasthan

2003-12-11

S.K.KESHOTE

body2003
JUDGMENT : 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties perused the revision petition and the order of the Court below. 2. In this revision petition, the accused petitioner is praying for quashing and setting aside the order dated 12.6.2003 of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu in Complaint Case No. 226/2003, whereby he took cognizance against the accused petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882. 3. Only contention raised is that the notice sent by the complainant non petitioner No. 2 after dishonour of the cheque was not received by petitioner and the condition precedent for the prosecution of the petitioner is not satisfied. 4. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Shakti Travel & Tours v. State of Bihar & Anr, (JT 2000 (7) SC 563). 5. On the other hand, Mr. Aacharya, learned counsel for the complainant non-petitioner No. 2 supported the order of the learned Trial Court. 6. Mr. Sharma, learned public prosecutor has passed over a copy of the complaint and therefrom, I find that specific averment has been made of the notice received by the notice by the petitioner. 7. Learned Trial Court after considering document Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/5 and the statement of complainant Suparasmal Kothari has not committed any illegality in framing charge against the accused petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882. 8. This plea taken on the face of it is dishonest one. Even if it is taken for time being that the notice was not received by the accused petitioner, after receiving the summon of complainant, if he would be an honest person come up with the money for the payment thereof to the complainant. That has not been done. 9. I find that the accused petitioner at all the stages made an attempt to frustrate the very purpose and object of the provision of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882. 10. The decision on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is of little help to him in the facts of the this case. 11. In the result, this revision petition fails and the same is dismissed. 12. 10. The decision on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is of little help to him in the facts of the this case. 11. In the result, this revision petition fails and the same is dismissed. 12. The learned Trial Court is directed to complete the trial of the case within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. 13. Consequent upon dismissal of this revision petition, the stay application filed therewith does not survive and the same is also dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******