Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1348 (RAJ)

Nand Kishore v. State of Rajasthan

2005-05-06

H.R.PANWAR

body2005
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-By these two revision petitions under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code"), petitioner Nand Kishore has challenged the orders dated 04.08.2003 and 06.08.2003 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities ) Cases, Sri Ganganagar (for shot, "the Appellate Court" hereinafter) in Criminal Appeals No. 62/2003 and 63/2003 respectively, by which the appellate Court affirmed the Judgment s and orders, both dated 16.02.2001, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar (for short, "the trial Court") in Criminal Cases No. 297/1997 and 36/1998 respectively, by which the trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1889 (for short, "the Act") and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 3 lacs and in default of payment of fine further to undergo two months simple imprisonment in each case. The parties in both the cases are the same and common question of law and facts are involved, therefore, both these revision petitions are being decided by this common order. 2. The facts of the case, in a nut shell, are that petitioner issued two cheques in favour of respondent No. 2, which on presented before the bank, were dishonoured for want of sufficient fund in petitioners account. The respondent No. 2 issued notices and ultimately filed complaints against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. The trial Court, after appreciating the evidence and hearing the parties, convicted and sentenced the petitioner in both the cases as noted-above. Aggrieved by the Judgment s and orders, both dated 16.02.2001 passed by the trial Court, the petitioner preferred appeals before the appellate Court, which have been dismissed vide impugned orders dated 04.08.2003 and 06.08.2003, respectively. Hence, these revision petitions. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. I have carefully gone through impugned Judgment s and orders of the Courts below. 4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that empty cheques were given to the respondent No. 2 and the respondent No. 2 has not disclosed the accounts showing any amount due against the petitioner. His further contention is that the Courts below have erred in law in not making the conviction and sentence concurrently in both the cases. 5. His further contention is that the Courts below have erred in law in not making the conviction and sentence concurrently in both the cases. 5. Revision Petition No. 145/2004 (Dr.J.) is barred by 440 days. Likewise Revision Petition No. 146/2004 (Dr.J.) is barred by 438 days. Alongwith the revision petitions, applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act have been filed stating therein that due to drought in the area, he had to shift at other place and he could not contact his Counsel, nor his Counsel informed him about the decision in the appeals. No affidavit of Counsel who was engaged by the petitioner is on record. Even otherwise, the reason assigned by the petitioner is unbelievable and, therefore, petitioner has failed to show sufficient cause which prevented him to file these revision petitions within the period of limitation and, therefore, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act are liable to be dismissed for want of satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay. 6. So far as merits of the case are concerned, there are concurrent findings of fact by the Courts below. Both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence on record and hearing the arguments, arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 3 lacs in each cases. On careful perusal of the impugned Judgment s and orders of the Courts below, I find no illegality, error or perversity therein, which may require interference in revisional jurisdiction. 7. Consequently, both the applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, as also the revision petitions, are dismissed. The applications for suspension of sentence also stand dismissed.