Gujarat High Court
Devanand Gajanand Parante vs State Of Gujarat on 17 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/204/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 204 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
DEVANAND GAJANAND PARANTE
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ARIF A SHEKH(5040) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 17/04/2026
JUDGMENT
1) Today, when the matter is called out, learned counsel for the applicant remained absent. Even on the earlier dates, none had remained present on behalf of the applicant. Therefore, it clearly transpires that the applicant is not interested in prosecuting the present matter. Hence, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Taj Mohammad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.2421 of 2023, decided on 11.08.2023, this Court has considered the averments made in the present revision application as well as the material placed on record and has proceeded to decide the matter in absence of the applicant based on available material on record.
Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Fri Apr 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 18 02:16:17 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/204/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026 undefined
2) In view of the above facts of the case and at the request of learned APP, the matter is taken up for final disposal forthwith.
3) By way of present revision application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "CrPC"), the applicant - complainant has prayed for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 15.03.2012 rendered by learned City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No.233/2011, whereby learned Sessions Court has been pleased to acquit the accused from the charges under Section 138 of the NI Act.
4) In a complaint filed by the complainant, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.2, NI Act, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Case No.471/2009 has been pleased to hold the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of eight months and imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/-. The accused had assailed the said order before learned City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No.233/2011, which came to be allowed and acquitted the accused from the charges.
5) From the record, it appears that the learned Sessions Court, after appreciating the material placed on record, came to the conclusion that, as per the application at Exh. 17, the bank had stopped payment of cheque No. 665766 dated 14.10.2008. However, the date mentioned on the cheque for which stop payment was issued is 22.05.2009. The complainant failed to prove on record that the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt, and therefore, no cause of action arose for taking cognizance under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Considering the discrepancy in the cheque number and the error committed by the Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Fri Apr 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 18 02:16:17 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/204/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026 undefined bank, a wrong endorsement of "stop payment" was made. Furthermore, the complainant failed to establish that he is the proprietor of Dhara Handicraft and that the cheque was issued to him towards a legally enforceable debt. Therefore, the learned Sessions Court has not committed any error in acquitting the accused
6) The revisional jurisdiction can be exercised where there is a palpable error or non-compliance with the provision of law and where decision is completely erroneous and where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily. Herein, if we examine the reasons assigned by the learned Sessions Court, it appears that learned Sessions Court has already appreciated the facts and finding of fact not to be upset unless it is found perverse and finding of fact not to be substituted keeping in mind the ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander & Anr. reported in (2012)9 SCC 460 as no perversity is found in the reasons assigned by the learned Sessions Court. Learned Sessions Court has properly assigned reasons and given the finding based on evidence led before him and hence also, no interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is required.
7) It would be appropriate to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malkeet Singh Gill vs. State of Chhatisgarh reported in (2022)8 SCC 204 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that section 397/401 CrPC vests jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court. The object of the provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction of law. There has to be well-founded error which is to be determined on the merits of individual case. It is also Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Fri Apr 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 18 02:16:17 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/204/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/04/2026 undefined well settled that while considering the same, the Revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case to reverse those findings. It is a settled legal proposition that if the Court below has recorded the finding of fact, the question of re- appreciation of evidence by the Court does not arise unless it is found to be totally perverse.
8) In wake of aforesaid conspectus, present revision application fails and stands dismissed. Rule is hereby discharged.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) SUCHIT Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Fri Apr 17 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 18 02:16:17 IST 2026