Shehboob Jumman Khan Proprietor ... vs Alkesh Chandu Raval Proprietor Of ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4252 Guj

    R/CR.MA/4624/2021                            ORDER DATED: 19/04/2022




  IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

  R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 4624 of 2021

======================================
  SHEHBOOB JUMMAN KHAN PROPRIETOR OF M/S S.K.
                  TRADERS
                   Versus
    ALKESH CHANDU RAVAL PROPRIETOR OF SUN
                CONSULTANCY
======================================
Appearance:
SANKUL K KABRA(9304) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR AV NAIR(5602) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR. R. C. KODEKAR, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
======================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA M. SAREEN

                        Date : 19/04/2022

                           ORAL ORDER

Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Nair, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent no.1 and Mr. Kodekar, learned APP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent - State.

This is an application for leave to appeal filed under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment and order dated 31st December, 2020 passed by the 2nd Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vapi in Criminal Case no.313 of 2016, wherein the learned Magistrate was pleased to acquit the respondent - accused from the offence punishable under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act.

Heard Mr. Kabra, learned advocate for the applicant, who has submitted that the trial Court has erred in discarding

R/CR.MA/4624/2021 ORDER DATED: 19/04/2022

the case of the applicant on the non-germane grounds. He further submitted that the trial Court failed to appreciate that the applicant and respondent no.1 entered into business transaction, whereby the applicant was to purchase the scrap material from the respondent no.1 and amount for the same is paid to the respondent no.1. He has also submitted that though the cheques were issued by the respondent no.1 himself, the Court has not believed the same. He has submitted that the respondent no.2 has not disputed his signature or other contents of the cheques before the trial Court and trial Court has erred in holding that the presumption is rebutted by the respondent no.1. There is an arguable case in favour of the applicant.

Mr. Nair, learned advocate for the respondent no.1 has objected and submitted that there is no contract between the parties and trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and has rightly acquitted the respondent - accused from the offence. There is no requirement of interference of this Court.

Upon hearing of submissions of both the sides and perusing the judgment and order of the trial Court, this Court is of the view that few points raised by the learned advocate for the applicant/appellant requires consideration. Hence, leave to appeal is granted. Rule made absolute.

Registry to give number and register the appeal and place the same before this Court within four weeks.

(RAJENDRA M. SAREEN, J.) AMAR RATHOD...