NATHU RAM BANSAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant application for Leave to Appeal has been filed on behalf of appellant-Nathu Ram Bansal being aggrieved of the order dated 25.11.2011 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, (N.I. Act Cases), Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Regular Compliant Case No. 1832/2010, whereby, the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent No. 2 from the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In this case, initially, the complainant aggrieved by the rejection of his complaint filed an appeal in the court of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, No. 2, Sri Ganganagar under Section 372 Cr.P.C., but thereafter, on being advised that the judgment of acquittal in a complaint case could only be challenged by ' way of filing an application for Leave to Appeal, the said Appeal No. 17/2012 was withdrawn from the court of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, No. 2, Sri Ganganagar on 12.4.2012. Thereafter, the instant application for Leave to Appeal has been filed by the complainant in this Court assailing the order of acquittal of the respondent No. 2 for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

(2.) The office has put an objection regarding the application for Leave to Appeal being barred by limitation. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed on behalf of the applicant for condonation of delay occasioned in filing of the appeal due to bonafide reasons. Notice of the application was issued to the respondents.

(3.) Learned counsel Shri R. Bhatnagar appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2 raised a preliminary objection that in the light of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Single Bench of this Court in the case of Laxmilal Menariya & Ors. v. Rajendra Kumar & Ors.,2012 4 CrLR 2015, an application for Leave to Appeal is not maintainable in the High Court against a judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate in a complaint case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. He submits that this Court in the above referred decision has held that the complainant is a victim as defined under Section 3 (wa) Cr.P.C. and, therefore, he has a right to challenge the judgment of acquittal recorded by a Magistrate in a complaint case by way of filing an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. in the concerned Sessions Court. Therefore, he submits that the application for grant of leave to appeal deserves to be rejected.