M/S Agrostar Industries vs The State Of Assam And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 3668 Gua

                                                                     Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010183812022




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                  Case No. : Crl.L.P./55/2022

            M/S AGROSTAR INDUSTRIES
            (A REGISTERED PARTERSHIP FIRM) HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT A.T.
            ROAD, WARD NO. 4,
            P.O.- JORHAT,
            DIST.- JORHAT, ASSAM,
            REPRESENTERD BY ITS PARTNER PRASANT MALPANI,
            S/O OM PRAKASH MALPANI,
            R/O A.T. ROAD, WARD NO. 4,
            P.O. AND P.S.- JORHAT,
            DIST.- JORHAT, ASSAM.

            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
            REP. BY THE P.P., ASSAM.

            2:JYOTISH NEOG
             S/O SHIBNATH NEOG
            VILL.- DIMARUGURI
             P.O.- DIMARUGURI
             P.S.- TINSUKIA
             DIST.- TINSUKIA
            ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner   : DR ANKIT TODI

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
                                                                        Page No.# 2/2

                                 BEFORE
               HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA

                                      ORDER

Date : 12.09.2023 Heard Mr. A. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as Mr. A. Konwar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

This application under Section 378(4) of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the petitioner seeking leave to appeal against, acquittal of the respondent No. 2, by the impugned judgment and order dated 19.07.2022 passed by the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat in CR Case No. 344/2015, whereby the respondent No. 2 was acquitted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Considering the grounds mentioned in the petition as well as the fact that learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has not opposed the prayer for grant of leave, the leave is granted as sought for.

Let the connected appeal be registered and be placed again after three weeks for admission hearing.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant