Ratiram Yadav VS Gopal Sharma

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR
Ratiram Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Gopal Sharma – Respondent

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Mithlesh Kumar (in CRLR No. 1305/2018, 696/2018, 1183/2018 and 1258/2018), Mr. Vivek Choudhary in CRLR 626/2018
For the Respondents: Mr. Vivek Choudhary, Mr. Mithlesh Kumar (in CRLR No. 626/2018)

JUDGMENT

Reportable

These revision petitions arise from the following:

(i) Three revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner Ratiram Yadav whereby the accused Gopal Sharma has been acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short “N.I. Act”).

(ii) One revision has been filed by accused Gopal Sharma against his conviction under Section 138 of the “N.I. Act”.

(iii) One revision petition has been filed by complainant Ratiram Yadav against reduction of sentence.

2. Since all the revisions are between the same parties and pertain to transaction of same nature containing common question of law, hence all are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The complainant–petitioner Ratiram Yadav filed four distinct complaints under Section 138 of the “N.I. Act” regarding cheque Nos. 132424, 132425, 132426 and 132427 drawn on State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Murlipura Branch, Jaipur, bearing date of year 2013 and issued by accused Gopal Sharma for Rs.1,25,000/- each. All the cheques were dishonoured on presentation for the reason “insufficient funds”. Despite service of legal notice, the accused failed to make payment, compelling the comp