Gujarat High Court
Nanakram Lekhuram Vanjani Proprietor ... vs State Of Gujarat on 27 June, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11663/2024 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL) NO. 11663
of 2024
In R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1361 of 2024
With
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1361 of 2024
==========================================================
NANAKRAM LEKHURAM VANJANI PROPRIETOR OF NANAK TRADERS
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR D M AHUJA(115) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR JAY MEHTA, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 27/06/2024
ORAL ORDER
ORDER IN R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL)
NO. 11663 of 2024
1. Learned advocate Mr.D.M.Ahuja submits that the
judgment and order of acquittal was passed by the
learned trial Court merely on the ground that there is a
discrepancy in the amount mentioned in the words and in
the figure in the disputed cheque. Learned advocate
Mr.Ahuja has relied on Section 18 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act,1886, which is reproduced hereinbelow:
"18:Where amount is stated differently in figures and
words:- If the amount undertaken or ordered to be
paid is stated differently in figures and in words, the
amount stated in words shall be the amount
undertaken or ordered to be paid."
1.1. Learned advocate Mr.Ahuja submits that as per this
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11663/2024 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2024
undefined
section the amount which is mentioned in figure would
prevail and Bank should examine the cheque at the
time of clearance. Learned advocate Mr.Ahuja submits
that the cheque was not dishonored only on the
ground of discrepancy in the amount, but reasons
stated in the return memo suggests that the account is
closed. Learned advocate Mr.Ahuja submits that the
learned trial Court has held that because of the
discrepancy, notice which was issued is invalid notice
as it refers the amount which is mentioned in the
figure.
2. Learned advocate Mr.Ahuja has referred Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1886 more particularly
clause (b) wherein it is stated that payee or the holder in
due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a
demand for the payment of the said amount of money by
giving the notice.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Ahuja submits that the words
mention "said amount" means the amount which is
stated in the cheque, which may be either in figure or in
the word. Learned advocate Mr.Ahuja relies on the
decisions rendered by the Karnataka High Court in the
case of N.Hasainar vs. M.Hasainar, reported in 2009
2 Bankmann 44 and the Rajasthan High Court in the
case of Shyam Sunder Soni vs. State of Rajasthan &
Ors, reported in 2022 4 Cr.L.J. 1769 and submits that
merely because there is a discrepancy in the cheque and
difference amount mentioned in the words and figure,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11663/2024 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2024
undefined
cheque cannot be termed as invalid cheque.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Ahuja further submits that except
this, no any rebuttal evidence was laid by the
respondent-accused during the trial, however, learned
trial Court has acquitted the respondent-accused without
giving any cogent reasons.
5. Considering the submissions, this Court deems it fit to
allow this application for seeking leave to prefer an
appeal. Hence, present application is allowed. Leave to
prefer an appeal is granted.
ORDER IN R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1361 of 2024
1. The appeal is admitted. Learned APP Mr.Mehta
waives service of notice of admission on behalf of the
respondent-State.
2. Issue Bailable Warrant in the sum of Rs.5,000/-
(Rupees Five Thousand Only) against the respondent-
original accused.
3. Record and Proceedings shall be called for.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
M.M.MIRZA
