##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:5872]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 122/2019

Jogesh Kumar, Branch In-Charge, National Credit Co-Operative

Society Limited, Jalore, Tehsil And District Jalore.

----Appellant

Versus

Khimaram S/o Shri Laxmanaram, By Caste Prajapat, Resident Of

Near Bus Stand, Mandwala, Tehsil And District Jalore.

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : None present

For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.S. Rathore

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Judgment

29/01/2026

1. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred by the

appellant–complainant assailing the judgment dated 14.03.2018

passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jalore, District Jalore in

Criminal Original Case No. 286/2016, whereby the respondent–

accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

2. The appeal was taken up for final hearing. No one appeared

on behalf of the appellant to advance arguments. On earlier

occasions also, when the appeal was listed, none appeared for the

appellant. Since the appeal arises out of a judgment of acquittal in

a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments

Act, this Court considers it appropriate to decide the appeal on

merits on the basis of the grounds urged in the memorandum of

(Uploaded on 10/02/2026 at 01:45:53 PM)

(Downloaded on 15/02/2026 at 04:36:44 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5872] (2 of 5) [CRLAS-122/2019]

appeal and upon an independent examination of the impugned

judgment.

3. This Court has carefully perused the impugned judgment

dated 14.03.2018 and the entire record of the trial court. The

prosecution case, as noticed by the learned trial court, was that

the complainant society advanced a loan of ₹1,50,000/- to the

accused on 20.10.2012. It was alleged that towards discharge of

the outstanding liability, the accused issued cheque No. 532822

dated 12.12.2012 for a sum of ₹1,63,500/- drawn on Bank of

Baroda, Jalore. Upon presentation, the cheque was dishonoured

on account of insufficient funds, followed by issuance of statutory

notice and filing of the complaint.

4. The learned trial court examined the oral evidence of the

complainant witness PW-1 Jogesh Kumar Kumar and scrutinised

the documentary evidence produced on record, including the

cheque, return memo, legal notice, postal receipts, loan sanction

documents, and the loan account statement. After a detailed

appreciation of the evidence, the trial court recorded a finding that

the complainant failed to satisfactorily establish the existence of a

legally enforceable debt corresponding to the cheque amount as

on the date of its issuance.

5. The trial court has specifically noticed that the loan in

question was repayable in 36 monthly instalments of ₹6,417/-

each and that the accused had deposited several instalments

during the subsistence of the loan. The cumulative amount

deposited by the accused was found to be ₹73,100/-. The trial

(Uploaded on 10/02/2026 at 01:45:53 PM)

(Downloaded on 15/02/2026 at 04:36:44 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5872] (3 of 5) [CRLAS-122/2019]

court further observed that no convincing explanation was

forthcoming as to how the cheque amount of ₹1,63,500/- was

computed, particularly when the principal loan amount was

₹1,50,000/- and the account statement did not clearly reconcile

the figure mentioned in the cheque with the outstanding balance

on the relevant date.

6. The defence of the accused that the cheque in question was

obtained at the time of sanction of the loan and was not issued

towards a crystallised liability on the date mentioned therein was

examined by the trial court in the light of the surrounding

circumstances and the complainant’s own evidence. The trial court

found that the manner in which the cheque amount was

calculated, coupled with the absence of clear material showing

contemporaneous determination of liability, gave rise to a probable

defence which could not be effectively rebutted by the

complainant.

7. The learned Magistrate also considered the aspect of

statutory notice and found that although issua