✦ High Court of India · 19 Sep 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No v. Ramjeevan Saini Son of

Case Details High Court of India · 19 Sep 2025
Court
High Court of India
Decided
19 Sep 2025
Bench
Not available
Length
1,201 words

: Mr. Rajveer Singh, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Addl.G.A. Mr. Devi Singh, Dy.G.A. Mr. Nirmal Kumar Goyal, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order DATE OF RESERVED DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :: :: 25/08/2025 19/09/2025 1- ;kph dh vksj ls ;g ;kfpdk n.M izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 482 ds vUrxZr fo}ku fof'k"B U;kf;d eftLVsªV ¼,u-vkbZ-,DV izdj.k½ la[;k&1] vyoj ¼ftls vkxs ^v/khuLFk U;k;ky;* ds uke ls lacksf/kr fd;k tk,xk½ }kjk vkijkf/kd izdj.k la[;k&23@1623@2015 esa ikfjr vkyksP; vkns'k fnukad 25-07-2019 ls O;fFkr gksdj izLrqr dh x;h gSA 2- mDr vkns'k] fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk ;kph&vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls izLrqr izkFkZuk i= esa ikfjr fd;k x;k Fkk] ftlesa ;kph&vfHk;qDr us O;Dr fd;k Fkk fd jsLiksaMsaV@ifjoknh }kjk vkmV MsVsM psd dks cSad esa izLrqr fd;k Fkk] ftlds vuknfjr gksus ds vk/kkj ij fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us ;kph&vfHk;qDr ds fo#) ijØkE; fy[kr vf/kfu;e] 1881 dh /kkjk 138 ds rgr izlaKku fy;k tkdj dk;Zokgh vkjEHk dh gSA ;kph&vfHk;qDr }kjk izlaKku vkns'k dks fujLr fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh x;h FkhA [2025:RJ-JP:38397] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-6086/2019] 3- nkSjkus cgl fo}ku vf/koDrk ;kph&vfHk;qDr dk rdZ jgk gS fd ;kph&vfHk;qDr }kjk jsLiksaMsaV@ifjoknh ds i{k esa fnukad 20-05-2014 dks ,d psd tkjh fd;k x;k FkkA mDr psd dks jsLiksaMsaV@ifjoknh us fnukad 20-08-2014 dks Hkqxrku gsrq cSad esa izsf"kr fd;kA tgka ls psd vkmV MsVsM ds fjekdZ ds lkFk okil fd;k x;kA fdUrq ifjoknh }kjk xyr :i ls psd ds laca/k esa /kkjk 138 ijØkE; fy[kr vf/kfu;e ds rgr ifjokn is'k fd;k x;k gS] ftlds vk/kkj ij izlaKku Hkh ys fy;k x;k gSA pwafd ifjoknh }kjk psd tkjh fd, tkus dh frfFk ls 90 fnol ds Hkhrj is'k fd;k tkuk pkfg, Fkk] tcfd ifjoknh }kjk 92osa fnu psd cSad esa izLrqr fd;k x;k tks le; ckf/kr gksus ds dkj.k vuknfjr gqvk gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa ;kph&vfHk;qDr ds fo#) ijØkE; fy[kr vf/kfu;e] 1881 dh /kkjk 138 ds v/khu ekeyk ugha py ldrk gSA vr% mijksDr vk/kkjksa ij ifjokn dks fujLr fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh x;hA vius rdksZa ds leFkZu esa fo}ku vf/koDrk ;kph&vfHk;qDr }kjk U;k;ky; dk /;ku fuEu U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa dh vksj vkdf"kZr fd;k x;k %& ● M/s Sidh Vinayak Trading Company Vs. M/s New Delhi Agro Foods Products & Ors., Criminal Revision No. 59/2016 (Decided on 16.08.2016) & ● Ansh Chugh Vs. Pradeep Gupta, reported in 2020 Supreme (Del) 1250. 4- blds foijhr fo}ku vf/koDrk jsLiksaMsaV@ifjoknh dh vksj ls mijksDr rdksZa dk fojks/k djrs gq, rdZ izLrqr fd;k fd psd tkjh gksus ds rhu ekg ds Hkhrj psd izLrqr djus dh le; lhek gS] u fd 90 fnu rFkk fu;ekuqlkj psd tkjh gksus ds fnukad dks vioftZr fd;k tkrk gSA bl izdkj psd tkjh gksus dh fnukad 20-05-2014 o psd dks cSad esa izLrqr fd;s tkus dh fnukad 20-08-2014 jgh gS] bl izdkj fdlh Hkh lwjr esa psd dks le; ckf/kr gksuk ugha ekuk tk ldrkA vr% mijksDr rdksZa ds vk/kkj ij ;kph&vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls izLrqr ;kfpdk dks vLohdkj dj [kkfjt fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh x;hA vius rdksZa ds leFkZu esa fo}ku vf/koDrk [2025:RJ-JP:38397] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-6086/2019] jsLiksaMsaV@ifjoknh }kjk U;k;ky; dk /;ku fuEu U;kf;d n`"Vkar dh vksj vkdf"kZr fd;k x;k %& ● Rameshchandra Ambalal Joshi Vs. State of Gujarat And Another, reported in 2014 (3) SCC (Cri) 542. 5- 6- lquk x;kA i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA i=koyh ds voyksdu ls izdV gksrk gS fd fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk vkyksP; vkns'k fnukad 25-07-2019 dks ikfjr djrs gq, ;g ekuk fd fjtoZ cSad vkWQ bf.M;k dh xkbZM ykbZu ds vuqlkj psd izLrqr djus dh vof/k rhu ekg gS] 90 fnol ugha gSA fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dk ;g Hkh ekuuk jgk fd fe;kn vof/k dh x.kuk fd, tkus ds le; psd tkjh fd;s tkus ds izFke fnu dks vioftZr fd;k tkrk gSA bl izdkj psd lgh :i ls rhu ekg dh vof/k esa izLrqr fd;k x;k FkkA ftl dkj.k ;kph&vfHk;qDr }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= [kkfjt dj fn;k x;k rFkk mDr vkyksP; vkns'k esa ;g Hkh izdV gqvk gS fd ifjoknh }kjk mDr psd dks izFke ckj 21-05-2014 o f}rh; ckj 20-08-2014 dks cSad esa Hkqxrku gsrq izLrqr fd;k x;k FkkA ;gka ;g mYys[kuh; gS fd iwoZ esa psd dh ekU;rk vof/k N% ekg Fkh tks orZeku esa rhu ekg gSA fo}ku vf/koDrk jsLiksaMsaV uEcj&1 dh vksj ls U;kf;d n`"Vkar jes'kpanz vEckyky tks'kh ¼mijksDr½ dh vksj U;k;ky; dk /;ku vkdf"kZr fd;k x;k gSA mDr U;kf;d n`"Vkar ikfjr fd;s tkus ds le; psd dh fof/kekU; vof/k N% eghus Fkh o mDr ekeys esa psd fnukad 31-12-2005 dks tkjh fd;k x;k Fkk] ftls fnukad 30-06-2006 dks Hkqxrku gsrq cSad esa izLrqr fd;k x;k Fkk] ftls le; ckf/kr ugha ekuk x;k gSA ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us mDr U;kf;d n`"Vkar esa izfrikfnr fd;k gS fd %& "14. The first question which calls for our answer is the meaning of the expression “month”: whether it would mean only a period of 30 days and, consequently, whether six months would mean a period of 180 days. The word “month” has been defined under Section 3(35) of the General Clauses Act to mean a month reckoned according to the British calendar. Therefore [2025:RJ-JP:38397] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-6086/2019] we cannot ignore or eschew the word ‘British calendar’ while construing “month” under the Act. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the period of six months cannot be calculated on 30 days in a month basis. Therefore, both the modes of 12 age 13 calculation suggested by Mr. Ahmadi do not deserve acceptance and are rejected accordingly." rFkk ;g Hkh izfrikfnr fd;k gS fd %& "24. Drawing a conclusion from the above mentioned authorities, we are of the opinion that the use of word “from” in Section 138(a) requires exclusion of the first day on which the cheque was drawn and inclusion of the last day within which such act needs to be done. In other words, six months would expire one day prior to the date in the corresponding month and in case no such day falls, the last day of the immediate previous month. Hence, for all purposes, the date on which the cheque was drawn, i.e., 31.12.2005 will be excluded and the period of six months will be reckoned from the next day i.e. from 1.1.2006; meaning thereby that according to the British calendar, the period of six months will expire at the end of the 30th day of June, 2006. Since the cheque was presented on 30.6.2006, we are of the view that it was presented within the period prescribed." 7- bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ;g izdV gksrk gS fd ifjoknh@jsLiksaMssaV }kjk psd dks le;kof/k ds mijkar izLrqr ugha fd;k gS] vfirq le;kof/k ds Hkhrj gh izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa mDr ;kfpdk pyus ;ksX; ugha gSA 8- fu"d"kZr% ;kph&vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls izLrqr ;kfpdk lkjghu gksus ds dkj.k vLohdkj dj [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA 9- LFkxu izkFkZuk i= o vU; lHkh yafcr izkFkZuk i=ksa dks Hkh mijksDrkuqlkj [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA LOKESH RAJ /44 (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments