Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2058 (RAJ)

Kaur Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2010-12-13

KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner Kaur Singh s/o Meet Singh b/c Jat Sikh, r/o Chak-7 LGW Dhani, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh against the impugned order dated 16.11.2010 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge , Hanumangarh in Criminal Appeal No.71/2009, while dealing with the appeal filed by the accused petitioner, who has been convicted under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. By the said order, the application filed by the petitioner under section 391 Criminal Procedure Code was rejected. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant respondent preferred a criminal complaint for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner with regard to a dishonoured cheque to the tune of Rs. 7,43,000/- . The learned lower court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. The petitioner preferred appeal before the learned District & Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh and during the pendency of the appeal , the petitioner preferred an application under section 391 Criminal Procedure Code for examination of the signature on the cheque in question, before the learned appellate court but the learned appellate court dismissed the said application vide order dated 16.11.2010. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned District & Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh, dated 16.11.2010, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that though the petitioner has raised this question for the first time before the appellate court, but even the appellate court's order declining to accept the application of the petitioner, is illegal and requires to be set aside while exercising the revisional jurisdiction by this Court. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the fact that the cheque did not bear the signature of the petitioner has been raised for the first time during the pendency of the appeal and this fact was never agitated even in reply to the notice served by the respondent No.2 to the petitioner, as required under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and neither any cross examination was made on this point nor any evidence was adduced regarding this fact. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced by both the parties and perused the order dated 16.11.2010 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh in criminal Revision No.71/2009 . 7. I have considered the arguments advanced by both the parties and perused the order dated 16.11.2010 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh in criminal Revision No.71/2009 . It is not in dispute that in response to the reply to the notice issued by the respondent No.2, petitioner never agitated the question that the cheque in question did not bear the signature of the petitioner and this fact was agitated for the first time during the pendency of the appeal. Moreover, petitioner admitted the fact of earlier transactions with respondent No.2. 8. Looking to this fact the order passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or failure of the exercise of jurisdiction. 9. In this view of the matter,the revision filed by the petitioner does not require to be accepted and the order passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh dated 16.11.2010 is maintained and the revision is dismissed accordingly.Revision Dismissed. *******