Gujarat High Court
Prakashchand Sajjanraj Chhajad ... vs State Of Gujarat on 18 October, 2022
Bench: Ashokkumar C. Joshi
R/CR.MA/13652/2020 ORDER DATED: 18/10/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 13652 of 2020
==========================================================
PRAKASHCHAND SAJJANRAJ CHHAJAD AUTHORISED
PERSON/MANAGER OF AADESHWAR FINANCE CORPORATION
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. DARSHAN DAVE, ADVOCATE for HL PATEL ADVOCATES(2034) for
the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS. KRUTI M SHAH(2428) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS. C.M.SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI
Date : 18/10/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application is filed by the
Applicant (Original Complainant) under Section 378(4) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure seeking Special Leave to Appeal challenging the impugned
judgment and order passed in Criminal Case No. 3700236 of 2016 by the
learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Special Negotiable Court),
Ahmedabad, dated 17.2.2020 recording acquittal of the Respondent No. 2
(Original Accused) under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Darshan Dave for for the Applicant and
learned Advocate Ms. Kruti M. Shah for the Respondent No.2 / Original
Accused.
3. Rule. Learned APP Ms. C.M.Shah appears and waives service of
notice of Rule on behalf of the Respondent - State of Gujarat.
R/CR.MA/13652/2020 ORDER DATED: 18/10/2022
4. Learned Advocate Mr. Darshan Dave has vehemently and fervently
argued that the reasons recorded by the learned Judge in the judgment are not
proper in the eyes of law. He has heavily placed reliance upon the different
documents including contingency of filing the complaint.
5. Per contra, learned Advocate Ms. Kruti M. Shah for Respondent No.2
has heavily placed reliance upon the contingency of complainant since the
complainant has filed a complaint in his personal capacity whereas nothing is
there on record so longer as Proprietorship, Manager-ship or the Directorship
of Aadeshwar Finance Corporation is concerned. She has placed reliance upon
one of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
6. This court has perused the judgment and order passed by the learned
Trial Court and also perused the judgment cited at the bar by the learned
Advocate for the Respondent No.2. This Court has also considered the
submissions advanced by the learned Advocate for the Applicant and learned
Advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent No.2. The matter requires
consideration.
7. It is to be noted that this Court is hearing on the Application for Leave
to Appeal and not the Appeal and therefore without observing anything in
detail, this Court is of the opinion that the matter requires consideration.
Therefore, the special leave to appeal as prayed for deserves to be granted and
the present Criminal Misc. Application stands allowed. Prayer in terms of
paragrapah 6(B) regarding leave to appeal is granted. Rule is made absolute.
(A. C. JOSHI,J)
57 / J.N.W
