HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR
S.B. Crml Leave To Appeal No. 266/2019

M/s Shri Ram Investment Ltd., M/s Shri Ram City Union Finance
Co. Ltd . Branch Office 21-21, Near Seema Hotel , P.s. Suraj Pol ,
Udaipur Through Mohd. Imran Khan S/o Sh. Mohd. Yakub Khan ,
Age About 34 Years , Retainer Advocate / Authorized Signatory
Gali No 1 , Pratapnagar , Jodhpur
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Shivraj Singh Rathore S/o Takhat Singh Rathore, B/c
Rajput , R/o Village Lakadwas, Bagdada Colony ,
Jhhamarkotada Mines , Tehsil Girwa , Distt. Udaipur
----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Dr. S.S. Jodha.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

Order

11/12/2019

The instant leave to appeal application under Section 378(4)

Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant complainant M/s. Shri Ram

Investment Ltd. and M/s. Shri Ram City Union Finance Co. Ltd.

seeking leave to file an appeal against the judgment dated

24.10.2018 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, N.I.

Act Cases No.3, Udaipur in Criminal Case No.4151/2015 whereby,

the respondent Shivraj Singh was acquitted of the accusation of

the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by

Dr. Jodha, learned counsel representing the applicant and have

gone through the impugned judgment and record.

(Downloaded on 28/05/2021 at 09:17:52 AM)

 (2 of 3) [CRLLA-266/2019]

On a threadbare appreciation of the evidence available on

record, it is clear that the applicant complainant, failed to prove

even a single document so as to satisfy the Court that any loan

agreement had been entered into between the Finance Company

and the respondent accused. All that is mentioned in the

complaint is that the accused took finance facility from the

company and then, failed to repay the same and the cheques

given by the accused were dishonoured upon presentation. Even

in the affidavits given by the company’s authorised witnesses viz.

Gurmit Singh and Jitendra Kumar in support of the complaint,

there is no reference of any loan agreement which might have

been entered into between the company and the accused. Finally,

Narendra Kumar (PW-1) appeared to give evidence on behalf of

the appellant Finance Company. In his cross-examination, he

admitted that the complaint did not reflect as to for what purpose,

the loan had been given to the accused. Neither the vehicle

number nor the model thereof in lieu of which, the finance facility

was allegedly given to the accused, were mentioned in the

complaint. No document pertaining to the loan transaction was

available in the file. The witness could not even say as to when

the loan was taken or what was the quantum thereof. Even the

loan account statement was also not produced on behalf of the

complainant.

In this background, I am of the firm opinion that the

conclusion drawn by the trial court in the impugned judgment of

acquittal that the complainant failed to prove the existence of a

legally enforceable debt against the accused by leading cogent

evidence, is well founded and unassailable. The impugned

judgment of acquittal dated 24.10.2018 passed by the learned

(Downloaded on 28/05/2021 at 09:17:52 AM)

 (3 of 3) [CRLLA-266/2019]

Special Judicial Magistrate, N.I. Act Cases No.3, Udaipur does not

suffer from any infirmity or illegality whatsoever warranting

interference.

Thus, the instant leave to appeal application is dismissed as

being devoid of merit.

Record be returned to the trial court.

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

24-Tikam/-

(Downloaded on 28/05/2021 at 09:17:52 AM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)