##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11846

1

N

I THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

N

AT I DORE

BEFORE

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 7919 of 2011

HARSH

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Appearance:

Shri Girish Desai- Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Romil Verma- G.A. for the State.

Reserved on : 11.02.2026

Pronounced on : 30.04.2026

…........................................................................................................

This petition having been heard and reserved for orders, coming on

for pronouncement this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482

read with Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C. and Article 20(2) of the Constitution

of India, against the order dated 02.09.2011, passed by the IV Additional

Sessions Judge, District Dhar, in Criminal Revision No.128/2011,

whereby the revision has been dismissed on the ground of delay.

3. The aforesaid revision was filed against the order dated

27.05.2011, passed in Criminal Case No.2626 of 2007, whereby the

application filed by the petitioner under Section 300(1) of Cr.P.C.,

alleging double jeopardy, has been rejected.

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA

Signing time: 30-04-2026

16:24:47

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11846

2

4. In brief, the facts of the case, as narrated in the petition, are as

hereunder:-

1. That on 23.03.2005, Police Station Dhar registered a Crime

No.156/2005 on a compliant made by Manager State Bank Of

Indore, Branch Pipali Bazar Dhar, for an offence u/s 420, 467, 468

and 120(B) of the I.P.C. against Rajendra Agrawal proprietor

Anoop Udyog, and Manager Union Bank Of India branch, Dhar.

2. That according to the complaint, on 17.03.2005 the said bank had

received from Union Bank of India through clearing house a bank

draft No. 285999 dated 16.03.2005 of Rs.8,25,000/- which was in

favour of Anoop Udhyog.

3. That the said draft was shown to have been issued by State Bank

of Indore Vadodara Branch; and on enquiry from the issuing bank it

was informed that the bank had not issued the said draft. That upon

this the draft was returned to the forwarding bank with said

endorsement.

4. That this put the bank on alert, and they checked earlier bank

draft clearing and found that similar two drafts Nos.286000 dated

11.03.2005 for an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- and Draft No.623000

dated 04.03.2005 for an amount of Rs.2,51,000/-, which were in

favour of Anoop Udyog were cleared and amount was paid on

12.03.2005 & 07.03.2005 respectively.

5. That upon this aforesaid report was made. The case was

investigated and after collecting necessary evidence charge-sheet

was submitted against the applicant and others but not against the

persons named in the F.I.R. i.e. Rajendra Agrawal and Bank

Manager of Union Bank of India branch Dhar.

6. That for the draft in question in Dhar case, the applicant was

earlier tried by the J.M.F.C. First Class (IV Court) Vadodara

Gujarat in Criminal Case No.2862/06 for offences u/s 467/467/468

& 420 of the I.P.C.

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: BAHAR CHAWLA

Signing time: 30-04-2026

16:24:47

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:11846

3

7. That on trial the learned Magistrate acquitted the applicant of

other charges but found him guilty of offence u/s 419/420 of I.P.C.

and convicted and sentenced him to R.I. for one year.

8. That the applicant moved an application u/s 300(1) of the

Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court, which was dismissed.

9. That against the said dismissal the applicant filed the aforesaid

Criminal revision before the Court of Sessions which was also

dismissed.

5. Shri Girish Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner has also

submitted that the Revisional Court has erred in dismissing the revision

only on the ground of limitation, holding that the application under

300(1) of Cr.P.C was filed after a period of four years and thus, the

evidence is required to be led by the parties. Shri Desai has also drawn

the attention of this Court t