##PAGE1##

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 869/2025

Vinodpuri S/o Prabhupuri, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Modi P.s.

Khairoda Tehsil Vallabhnagar, District Udaipur (Raj)

----Petitioner

Versus

1. Jitesh Kumar Gopawat S/o Neemat Lal Gopawat, R/o

Kharsan, Tehsil Vallabhnagar, P.s. Khairoda, District

Udaipur.

2. State Of Rajasthan, Pp

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Deepika Soni

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

05/03/2026

1. The instant criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner

against the judgment dated 25.04.2024 passed by the learned

appellate court affirming the judgment of conviction passed by the

learned trial court for the offence under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act, is barred by limitation from 353 days.

An application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act

seeking condonation of delay.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay in

filing the revision petition has occurred due to bona fide

circumstances. It is submitted that the petitioner was not well

acquainted with the legal procedure and due to lack of proper

legal advice the revision petition could not be filed within the

prescribed period of limitation. It is further submitted that the

(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 05:11:23 PM)

(Downloaded on 07/03/2026 at 11:01:48 AM)

(2 of 3) [CRLR-869/2025]

petitioner is presently in judicial custody since 19.12.2025 in

connection with the present matter and therefore the revision

petition could not be filed earlier.

3. It has further been submitted that the total cheque amount

involved in the matter is Rs.2,50,000/-. Out of the said amount, a

sum of Rs.1,80,000/- has already been paid by the petitioner on

different dates to the counsel for the complainant during the

course of proceedings before the learned Additional Sessions

Judge No.1, Udaipur, which fact is reflected from the order sheets

of the said court. It is contended that such payments were made

towards discharge of the liability arising out of the cheque in

question and the aspect relating to discharge of legally

enforceable liability is one of the issues which requires

examination in the revision petition.

4. I have considered the submissions advanced and have

perused the material available on record.

5. It is well settled that while considering an application under

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court is required to adopt a

liberal approach so that substantial justice is not defeated on

technical grounds of limitation, provided the delay is not deliberate

or mala fide. In the present case, the petitioner has explained that

the delay occurred due to lack of proper legal advice and that he

has been in judicial custody since 19.12.2025. The record also

indicates that a substantial part of the cheque amount i.e.

Rs.1,80,000/- out of the total cheque amount of Rs.2,50,000/-

has already been paid by the petitioner during the proceedings

before the appellate court. The question as to whether such

payments have any bearing on the subsistence or discharge of the

(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 05:11:23 PM)

(Downloaded on 07/03/2026 at 11:01:48 AM)

(3 of 3) [CRLR-869/2025]

legally enforceable liability is a matter which can appropriately be

examined at the time of hearing of the revision petition.

6. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the

case, this Court is satisfied that the delay in filing the revision

petition has been sufficiently explained and the same does not

appear to be intentional or deliberate. Refusal to condone the

delay would result in denial of an opportunity to the petitioner to

have the matter examined on merits.

7. Accordingly, the application filed under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act is allowed. The delay of 353 days in filing the

criminal revision petition is hereby condoned.

8. Consequently, the revision petition shall be treated as having

been filed within limitation.

9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner on the questio