LEELA DEVI Vs. JAGDISH RAJA JUNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the judgment dated 31.07.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Chittorgarh (for short "the appellate court" hereinafter) in Criminal Appeal No. 121/2014, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment dated 15.07.2013 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Chittorgarh (for short "the trial court" hereinafter) in Cri. Case No. 242/2012 (190/07) has been dismissed. The trial court vide judgment dated 15.07.2013 has dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short "the N.I. Act" hereinafter).

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that before the trial court, the petitioner had sufficiently proved that the accused-respondent had borrowed a sum of Rs. 35,000/- from her and handed over two cheques to her for the purpose of repayment of said loan, however, when the petitioner presented the said cheques in the concerned bank for realisation, the same were dishonoured with the endorsement that the account has been closed. It is also argued that the petitioner proved that she had served a notice upon the respondent No. 1, however, despite service of notice, respondent No. 1 has failed to pay the amount mentioned in the cheques and then the petitioner had filed a complaint under section 138 of the N.I. Act before the trial court within limitation. It is further argued that the trial court has dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner under section 138 of the N.I. Act solely on the basis of minor contradictions in the statement of the petitioner. It is submitted that the said minor contradictions in the statement of the petitioner do not have any significance and the trial court should have ignored the same. It is further argued that the appellate court has also not taken into consideration the evidence available on record and illegally rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner. It is thus prayed that both the impugned judgments being contrary to the facts and law may be set aside.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned judgments.