Jay Laxmi Industries Thro ... vs State Of Gujarat
2023 Latest Caselaw 8185 Guj

                                                                                           NEUTRAL CITATION




     R/CR.A/1060/2023                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 09/11/2023

                                                                                            undefined




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
      R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 1060 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================

1     Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed                         NO
      to see the judgment ?
2     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                                  NO
3     Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy                        NO
      of the judgment ?
4     Whether this case involves a substantial question                        NO
      of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
      of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
    JAY LAXMI INDUSTRIES THRO SARVAGNA JIGNESHKUMAR RAVAL
                              Versus
                        STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
KUSHAL A DESAI(9435) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
MR BHARGAV PANDYA, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
    CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
                     Date : 09/11/2023
                     ORAL JUDGMENT

1.This appeal is filed under Section 378 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the

Cr.P.C.' hereinafter) challenging the

impugned judgment and order dated 14.02.2023

passed by the learned Additional Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Halol in Criminal

Case No.976 of 2019, dismissing the complaint

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1060/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/11/2023

undefined

for non­prosecution by exercising the power

under Section 256 of the Cr.P.C. and

acquitting the respondent­accused from the

charges.

2.It is the case of the complainant that, the

complainant is the manufacturer of the

agricultural products, pesticides, etc. The

respondent­accused had purchased the goods

from the complainant on credit basis, on

demanding the bill amount, the respondent­

accused had issued the cheque in the name of

the complainant firm for the amount of

Rs.5,00,633/­ bearing cheque No.00036 dated

08.03.2019. On depositing the aforesaid

cheque with the HDFC Bank, Majegav,

Maharastra, it was returned with an

endorsement "fund insufficient" on

22.03.2019. Thereafter, the complainant had

issued the notice and after following the due

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1060/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/11/2023

undefined

procedure prescribed under the Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881, private complaint came

to be filed being Criminal Case No.976 of

2019. Learned Court vide order dated

15.05.2019 issued the process under 204 of

the Cr.P.C., making it returnable on

17.06.2019. Matter was adjourned time to time

and ultimately, on the day when the impugned

judgment and order was passed i.e. on

14.02.2023, learned Court had dismissed the

complaint on the ground of non­prosecution

and the respondent­accused was acquitted from

the charges, which are impugned before this

Court.

3.Heard the learned advocate Mr.Kushal Desai

for the appellant, learned APP Mr.Bhargav

Pandya for the respondent­State and as the

respondent No.2 had chosen not to appear

despite having the sufficient opportunity,

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1060/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/11/2023

undefined

the case is deciding in his absence.

4.Learned advocate Mr.Kushal Desai submits that

initially the summons was issued, making it

returnable on 15.05.2019. On that day the

application was given by the complainant to

reissue the summons and the same was done

making it returnable on 29.04.2022. On

29.04.2022, learned Court was on leave but on

the ground that summons is to be issued to

the accused, the matter was adjourned on

04.06.2022.Again, on that day the learned

Court was on leave and case was adjourned for

the issuance of the summons to the accused on

15.07.2022. On 15.07.2022, the summons was

issued to the complainant and direct service

was permitted and the matter was adjourned on

26.08.2022. On that day, the complainant had

changed the advocate, therefore, new advocate

has filed the Vakalatnama and application was

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1060/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/11/2023

undefined

given for permitting the service of summons

by direct service, which was granted and the

matter was kept on 14.10.2022. On 14.10.2022

though the direct service was permitted, but

it was not handed over to the learned

advocate for the complainant, therefore, by

observing that direct service is to be given

to the learned advocate to serve to the

respondent­accused, the matter was adjourned

on 14.11.2022. On 14.11.2022, accused was not

present, but the application was given by the

learned advocate to issue the Bailable or

Non­Bailable Warrant against the respondent­

accused and the matter was adjourned on

14.02.2023. It is submitted by the learned

advocate Mr.Desai for the appellant that as

new advocate came on the record and the case

was at the stage of service of Bailable or

Non­Bailable Warrant as well as the learned

advocate did not inform to the complainant

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1060/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/11/2023

undefined

with regard to the date, the complainant

could not remain present­in­person neither

learned advocate for the complainant was

present. And, the learned Court by exercising

the power under Section 256 of the Cr.P.C.

passed an impugned judgment and order.

5.Learned advocate Mr.Desai further submits

that there was a single default on the part

of the complainant for no remaining present,

though the case was at the stage of the

service of the Bailable or Non­Bailable

Warrant and though the accused had despite

the summons had been served, chosen not to

appear before the learned Court, without

giving an opportunity to the complainant, the

case was dismissed for non­prosecution.

6.Learned advocate Mr.Desai further submits

that in the cases pertaining to the N.I.Act,

the complainant is always on the stake as he

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1060/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/11/2023

undefined

did not receive the due amount and

unfortunately the cheque was also returned

and these are the proceedings having the

limitation period, on dismissing the

complaint for non­prosecution the complainant

would be left remedy less.

7.Learned advocate Mr.Desai for the appellant

submits that it is true that the complainant

did not remain present on the day when the

impugned judgment and order was passed and he

is ready to deposit cost of Rs.3000 and prays

that if this matter is restored to its

original file, no unnecessary adjournment

would be sought by the complainant and the

matter would be concluded without further

delay.

8.Learned advocate Mr.Desai further submits

that accused is the resident of the State of

Maharashtra and despite the summons was

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1060/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/11/2023

undefined

served, he had chosen not to appear before

the Court and the learned Court had acquitted

the respondent­accused without giving an

opportunity to the complainant to lead the

evidence and decide the matter on merits.

9.In view of above, the learned advocate

Mr.Desai prays to quash and set aside the

order and to restore the matter to its

original file.

10. Considering the issue involve, Section

256 of the Cr.P.C. is required to be re­

looked which is reproduced hereinbelow:

"256. Non- appearance or death of complainant. (1) If the summons has been issued on complaint, and on the day appointed for the appearance of the accused, or any day subsequent thereto to which the hearing may be adjourned, the complainant does not appear, the Magistrate shall, notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, acquit the accused, unless for some reason he thinks it proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day: Provided that where the complainant is represented by a pleader or by the officer conducting the prosecution or where the Magistrate is of opinion that the personal attendance of the complainant is not necessary, the Magistrate may dispense with his attendance and proceed with the case.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1060/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/11/2023

undefined

(2) The provisions of sub- section (1) shall, so far as may be, apply also to cases where the non- appearance of the complainant is due to his death."

11. The discretion under Section 256 of the

Cr.P.C. has to be exercised fairly and

judiciously without impairing the cause on

administration of criminal justice.

12. In a case under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, it is

always complainant who is at stake for his

money which ought to have paid through the

cheuqe. Unfortunately, the cheque in question

was dishonored. Under such circumstances, a

complaint should not have been dismissed

immediately and Court ought to have adopted

the course to adjourn the case for hearing to

some other day under provision of Section 256

of the Cr.P.C.

13. Considering the arguments advanced by

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1060/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/11/2023

undefined

the learned advocate for the appellant and on

perusing the record, this Court finds that

the learned Court had dismissed the complaint

for non­prosecution on 14.02.2023 recording

the absent of the complainant and on perusing

the rojkaam it is found that except the date

when the impugned order was passed, the

complainant or his learned advocate was

present before the concerned Court. Learned

Court ought to have considered the aspect

that though the summons was served and

application was given for Bailable or Non­

Bailable Warrant, instead of giving the

opportunity to the complainant to serve the

warrant, learned Court had dismissed the

complaint.

14. Learned Court ought to have followed the

principles of natural justice by giving the

opportunity to lead the evidence to the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1060/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/11/2023

undefined

complainant and instead of dismissing the

matter on technical ground, it should have

been decided on merits. Therefore, this Court

is of the view that the order passed by the

learned Court below requires to be quashed

and set aside and complaint is required to be

restored to its original file. As the

appellant was not appeared before the

concerned Court therefore, the concerned

Court had passed the impugned order, the

appropriate cost is required to be awarded

and therefore, the appellant is directed to

deposit the cost of Rs.3000 with the Registry

of this Court and Registry is directed to

remit the said amount in the account of

Shishu Gruh, Paldi by way of electronic mode.

15. In view of above, this appeal is

allowed. The impugned judgment and order

dated 14.02.2023 passed by the learned

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1060/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/11/2023

undefined

Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Halol in Criminal Case No.976 of 2019 is

quashed and set aside. The proceedings shall

stand restored to their original number on

the file of the learned Magistrate and

complainant shall now proceed from the stage

when the order of the acquittal was passed. R

& P be sent back to the concerned Court

forthwith.

16. It is needless to say that the

complainant would not seek any unnecessary

adjournment and would see that the case is

concluded without further delay.

17. Direct Service is permitted.

(M. K. THAKKER,J) M.M.MIRZA