JAI KISHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner complainant, having instituted proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, invoked the jurisdiction of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate No.3, Jodhpur by preferring an application under Sec. 143A of the Act, praying for interim compensation to the extent of 20% of the cheque amount. The learned Magistrate, upon a comprehensive appraisal of the factual matrix and the rival submissions, declined the said relief by a reasoned order dtd. 1/2/2023 in Case NCV No.6393/2020. The petitioner carried the matter in revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Jodhpur in Criminal Revision No.06/2023 & NCV No.105/2023; however, the revisional court, by order dtd. 24/11/2023, affirmed the determination of the trial court, thereby resulting in concurrent judicial findings against the petitioner.

(2.) When the matter has now been brought before this Court, it assumes immediate procedural significance that the present petition, though couched under a nomenclature distinct from that of a criminal revision, in essence seeks reconsideration of the very order which has already been subjected to revisional scrutiny. A careful and analytical reading of the pleadings, grounds, and the relief sought leaves no room for doubt that the substance of the challenge remains unchanged. The transformation in procedural attire cannot alter the juridical character of the proceedings.

(3.) The procedural history unequivocally demonstrates that the petitioner, having suffered an adverse order from the Magistrate, availed the statutory remedy of revision before the Sessions Court and, upon failure therein, has attempted to re-open the identical issue before this Court. Such a course, irrespective of the terminology employed, partakes of the character of a second revision.