Gujarat High Court
Rajput Vijaysinh Natwarsinh ... vs State Of Gujarat on 3 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/9058/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 9058 of 2025
==========================================================
RAJPUT VIJAYSINH NATWARSINH PROPRIETOR OF JAY GOPAL
TRADING COMPANY
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS ALPA J DAVE(3924) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR RN SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 03/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
By way of present batch of petitions, common petitioner has sought quashment of order dated 13.03.2025 passed below (Annexure-A) at Exhibit 22 in Criminal Appeal No.59 of 2024 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana at Visnagar whereby the Sessions Judge was pleased to reject an application at Exhibit 22 preferred by the applicant herein.
Having heard learned APP appearing for respondent - State of Gujarat and perusing the record, it appears that present petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in different criminal cases against which the petitioner filed different criminal appeals challenging his conviction and sentence and in the pending criminal appeals, petitioner filed applications requesting to consolidate all the criminal appeals and hear them together on the same day.
Page 1 of 2 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Fri Jul 04 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 02:05:37 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/9058/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/07/2025 undefined It is needless to say that when separate judgment is passed and separate cases / appeals are registered on separate cause of action and separate conviction is recorded and sentence is passed, each criminal appeal is required to be decided on its own merits and therefore, question does not arise to decided the same as per the convenience of the accused. The accused / party may request the Court for accommodation and hence, in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Padmaraj Rani vs. The State of Telangana & Anr. reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 584, no case is made out to entertain the present batch of petitions in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, present petition is dismissed.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ALI Page 2 of 2 Uploaded by ALI ISTAYAK(HC01093) on Fri Jul 04 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 02:05:37 IST 2025