[2025:RJ-JD:33598]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 528/2016 Kaluram S/o Mangalaram, R/o village Gangaradi, Tahsil – Merta, Dist. Naguar (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through its P.P. Merta, Dist. Nagaur.

2. Zakir Hussain S/o Shri Raseed Ji, R/o Behind Prince Tokiz, Merta City, P.S. Merta City, Dist. Nagaur (Raj)

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bharat Devasi For Respondent(s) : Mr. O.P. Joshi Mr. Karan Joshi HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

Reportable

29/07/2025

1. By way of filing this instant petition, the petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, assailing the legality, propriety, and correctness of the judgment dated 16.05.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 02/16 (75/13)359/16, titled Kaluram v. Zakir Hussain & Anr., whereby the learned Appellate Court upheld the judgment dated 30.07.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Merta, in Original Criminal Case No. 153/12 (334/11), titled Zakir Hussain & Anr. v. Kaluram, arising out of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. The respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on 07.03.2011 against the petitioner, alleging that the petitioner had taken a grinding machine on rent for the purpose of mixing cement and sand (bajri). It was agreed that a sum of ₹7,500/- would be paid monthly as rent for the said machine, and the details of the rental transactions were noted by the petitioner in the complainant’s personal diary. It was further alleged that the petitioner had paid ₹10,000/- towards rent on 28.10.2009, followed by ₹30,000/- via cheque, and an additional ₹5,000/- on 19.09.2010. The petitioner also issued a cheque dated 05.09.2010 for ₹20,000/- towards rent, which was duly signed by him and given with the assurance that the same could be encashed upon presentation. However, upon presentation, the said cheque was dishonoured on 09.02.2011 with the remark “Funds Insufficient”. According to the complainant, rent was outstanding for a period of 16 months up to 05.02.2011, amounting to ₹1,20,000/-. Out of the said amount, the petitioner allegedly paid ₹65,000/-, leaving a balance of ₹55,000/- unpaid. Furthermore, the petitioner did not return the rented machine. Upon dishonour of the cheque, the complainant issued a registered legal notice to the petitioner, which went unanswered. During the course of preliminary enquiry, the statement of the complainant was recorded, and cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate on 06.09.2011. Thereafter, on

11.10.2012, the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was framed against the petitioner, which he denied, leading to commencement of trial. During the trial, the complainant examined himself as a witness and produced seven documents in support of his case. The statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and he also appeared as a witness in his defence. After conclusion of the trial and hearing final arguments, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Merta, vide judgment dated 30.07.2013 in Criminal Original Case No. 153/12 (334/11), convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner was sentenced to three months’ simple imprisonment and directed to pay ₹30,000/- as compensation. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, which was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide judgment dated 16.05.2016, thereby affirming the judgment and order dated 30.07.2013 passed by the Trial Court. Being dissatisfied with the judgment dated 16.05.2016, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition before this Court.

3. Heard learned counsels present for the parties and gone through the materials available on recor