Gujarat High Court
Rekhaben Dashrathbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 10 March, 2022
Bench: B.N. Karia
R/CR.RA/234/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/03/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 234 of 2022
==========================================================
REKHABEN DASHRATHBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MAULIK H VAGHELA(7810) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS MH BHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA
Date : 10/03/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. By preferring present application, applicant has
requested to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated
18.12.2021 passed by learned District and Sessions Court,
Ahmedabad (Rural) at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 26
of 2021 as well as judgment and order dated 20.03.2021
passed by learned Additional Judicial Magistrate Court,
Ahmedabad (Rural), at Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No. 4022
of 2014 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI
Act for not imposing adequate imprisonment, fine and just and
proper compensation as provided under Section 138 of the NI
Act, 1881.
2. Heard learned advocate for the applicant.
3. It was submitted by learned advocate for the applicant
R/CR.RA/234/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/03/2022
that both the courts have committed error in passing order
directing the applicant herein to pay Rs. 1 lac to the
respondent no.2/original accused. That, learned Sessions Court
has confirmed the order of conviction and directed the
applicant to pay Rs. 1 lac to the respondent no.2 is illegal and
without application of mind. That, as per the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in case of 2021 (5) SCC 283, court should
uniformly levy fine upto twice the cheque amount alongwith
suitable interest at the rate of 9% p.a.That, no interest @ 9%
p.a. was awarded to the present applicant. Hence, learned
advocate for the applicant has limited his arguments on the
issue of interest at the rate of 9% p.a. not awarded to the
applicant.
4. Having heard learned advocate for the applicant and the
impugned judgment and order passed by the court below in
Criminal Case No. 4022 of 2014 as well as Criminal Appeal
No. 26 of 2021, it appears that trial court has convicted the
respondent no.2/original accused for the period of six months
simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2500/-, in default to pay
amount of fine, further simple imprisonment of one month was
awarded. It was further ordered to pay the cheque amount by
way of compensation vide order dated 26 th March 2021 in
Criminal Case No. 4022 of 2014. As against that, the present
applicant has preferred appeal against the judgment and order
R/CR.RA/234/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/03/2022
of the trial court before the District and Sessions Court vide
Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2021 wherein, at the first time, in
paragraph no. F of the appeal memo, grievance was raised by
the appellant as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court,
applicant was entitled to claim for the interest at the rate of 9%
p.a.. That, the lower appellate court, after hearing the aprties,
discussed issue in apra 9 of the judgment and dismissed the
appeal of the present applicant and partly confirmed the order
of the trial court. It was further ordered that respondent no.2/
original accused shall pay amount of Rs. 1 lac by way of fine
and out of this amount, Rs. 50,000/- shall be given to the
present applicant by the respondent no.2 by way of
compensation. It was further ordered that as respondent no.2/
original accused while filing the appeal, has deposited Rs. 4
lacs, 50% amount shall be refunded to the accused out of Rs. 1
lacs within a period of one month.
5. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kalamani Tex and
Another Vs. P.Balasubramaniyan, reported in 2021(5) SCC
283 in para 19 has observed as under:
"19. Considering the fact that there has been an admitted
business relationship between the parties, we are of the opinion
that the defence raised by the appellants does not inspire
confidence or meet the standard of 'preponderance of
probability'. In the absence of any other relevant material, it
appears to us that the High Court did not err in discarding the
appellants' defence and upholding the onus imposed upon them
in terms of Section 118 and Section 139 of the NIA."
R/CR.RA/234/2022 ORDER DATED: 10/03/2022
6. From the record of the trial court and the judgment, it
appears that no special circumstances were shown by the
present applicant allegedly extended at the relevant point of
time. For the first time before the lower appellate court,
grievance was raised by the present applicant that he was not
awarded interest at the rate of 9% p.a. as per the judgment.
7. Without any special circumstances shown by the present
applicant and put on record, in absence of any special
circumstance, trial court as well as lower appellate court has
committed no error by not awarding any interest at the rate of
9% p.a. as prayed by the present applicant.
8. The applicant was required to put on record for claiming
interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and was required to place special
circumstances in her evidence before the trial court. In
absence of any evidence showing any special circumstances to
claim interest at the rate of 9% p.a. by the present applicant, it
can never be said that impugned judgment and award passed
by the trial court is erroneous or illegal.
9. Considering the facts of the present case as limited issue
is raised by the present applicant, this court is not inclined to
admit this revision application and is hereby dismissed.
(B.N. KARIA, J)
K. S. DARJI
