[2025:RJ-JD:50613]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 81/2025 Sarita Dalmiya W/o Shri Shiv Gopal Dalmiya, Aged About 49 Years, R/o M-2, Smridi Complex, Sardarpura C Road, Near Paras Blood Bank, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Shri Ateet Sharma S/o Shri Surendra Sharma, R/o C-40, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Roop Kishore Rathi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hathi Singh Jodha, PP Mr. Prithvi Raj Singh Balot Mr. Hanwant Singh Balot HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order

(i) Arguments concluded on: 09 / 09 /2025 (ii) Judgment reserved on: 09/09/2025 (iii) Full judgment/Operative part: Full judgment (iv) Judgment pronounced on : 24/11/2025

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS (482 CrPC) against the order dated 09.12.2024 passed by Additional Session Judge No.3, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Cr. Appl No.646/2017 vide which the application filed by the petitioner under Order 32 Rule 7 of General Rules (Civil and Criminal), 2018, was dismissed with costs.

2. Bereft of elaborate details briefly stated the facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that the complainant lent Rs.

9,50,000 to the petitioner as they were acquainted with each other, and the petitioner agreed to repay the same within 2 months. After the expiry of 2 months, the petitioner did not return the said amount. After multiple reminders, the petitioner issued a cheque of Rs. 9,50,000, but the same was dishonoured on account of ‘Funds Insufficient’ when presented for encashment. Subsequently, the complainant-respondent, through his counsel, served notice upon the petitioner, but despite receiving the same, the petitioner neither replied to the notice nor did she pay the amount within the stipulated period of 15 days. Consequently, the complainant filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court, and the learned learned Trial Court framed the charges under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, held the petitioner guilty and sentenced the petitioner vide order dated 15.11.2017 to undergo simple imprisonment of one and a half year and a fine of Rs. 12,48,000, and additional imprisonment of six months in case of default.

3. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order dated 15.11.2017, and during the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner moved an application in the Appellate Court stating that the rules of marking of exhibits as laid under General Rules (Civil and Criminal) [hereby referred as “General Rules”] were not duly followed. The presiding officer failed to mark the exhibits on documents with his initials, designation, date, and court seal;

therefore, the evidence is not admissible in court.

4. The Appellate Court vide order dated 10.10.24 allowed the application and remitted the matter back to the learned Trial Court, directing that the exhibits shall be marked according to the provisions mentioned in General Rules, and return the documents to the Appellate Court within 7 days.

5. In compliance with the Appellate Court’s directives, the learned Trial Court marked and put the date “04.11.15” on all the previously marked documents for submission to the Appellate Court. The petitioner raised an objection, contending that the learned Trial Court marked exhibit on the documents without issuing prior notice and that the documents were marked backdated. The Appellate Court overruled the objection, imposed costs, and noted that no specific direction was given to the learned Trial Court to issue notice. The Appellate Court further clarified that the authenticity of the presiding officer’s signatures would be adjudicated during the final hearing, and observed that the petitioner was unduly delaying the trial by filing superfluous applications.

6. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this court with the following prayer:

“It is therefore prayed that this Criminal Misc. Petition may kindly be allowed and the impu