Hari Ram Choudhry vs Navratan And Others

Farjand Ali, J

As per the office report, notice has duly been served upon the respondent No.1, however, no one has appeared on his behalf.

Heard on application under Section 5 of Limitation Act preferred on behalf of applicant-Hari Ram. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that due to inadvertence and lack of legal knowledge, the applicant had made challenge to the judgment of acquittal dated 12.07.2022 passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No.3, District Bikaner in Criminal Regular Case No.26/2022 by way of filing an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner on 08.08.2022 which was came to be dismissed by learned Additional Session Judge No..6, Bikaner on 17.10.2022 on the ground the appeal against the acquittal is not maintainable as per Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that it was a bonafide mistake and, thus, a wrongful forum was approached, therefore, in view of the above, the delay of 78 days in filing the instant criminal leave to appeal is condoned.

Heard on leave to appeal application.

It appears that the cheques were allegedly given to the petitioner complainant by the accused respondent which upon presentation got dishonored due to insufficient amount in the account of the respondent accused. After that, notices were issued to the accused respondent and a complaint was filed within the stipulated period. After a thread bare discussion of the evidence, learned trial Court acquitted the accused respondent. There appears reasonable and valid grounds to allow the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the impugned judgment.

Accordingly, the instant application seeking leave to appeal is allowed. The memo of leave to appeal application shall be treated and registered as an appeal.

Office to proceed.