Gujarat High Court
Shriram Transport Finance Co. ... vs State Of Gujarat on 27 September, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9890/2024 ORDER DATED: 27/09/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL) NO. 9890 of 2024
In F/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 9631 of 2024
==========================================================
SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD(KNOWN AS SHRIRAM FINANCE LTD.)
THRO SURENDRASINH SONSINH CHAUHAN
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MANISH J PATEL(2131) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. HARSHAD D BAROT(7287) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 27/09/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. Present application under Section 378(4) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the applicant for
Leave to Appeal against the impugned judgment and order of
acquittal dated 17.10.2023 passed by the learned 3 rd Additional
JMFC, Himmatnagar in Criminal Case No. 2071 of 2019 acquitting
the opponent herein - original accused.
2. Learned advocate Mr. Manish Patel for the applicant-
original complainant has submitted that the complainant -finance
company has provided finance facility to the father of the
present respondent No.2 for the purchase of vehicle bearing
registration No. GJ-17-D-6585 on 21.10.2015 of Rs. 1,90,000/-
wherein again the re-finance was made on 16.08.2016 of Rs.
8,737/- by way of executing agreement No. HIMNG0510190001.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9890/2024 ORDER DATED: 27/09/2024
undefined
It is submitted that on 19.02.2019, the company has demanded
Rs. 4,55,328.94/- against the amount of Rs. 1,90,000/- therefore,
the respondent on the same day has issued a cheque of Rs.
1,90,000/- from his bank i.e. Dena Bank bearing cheque no.
339574. The said cheque was deposited in the account and the
same was returned with an endorsement that the account
blocked with the written memo. Thereafter, the applicant has
issued legal notice on 08.03.2019, the said notice was served
upon the respondent and it was not replied and the amount is
also not paid. Therefore, the applicant has initiated the
proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act by way of filing a complaint before the concerned Court.
After examining and verifying the complainant, the trial Court
was pleased to issue summon, the same came to be issued to the
respondent, the respondent has not pleaded guilty and after
recording the plea, the case was proceeded further. It is further
submitted that the trial Court after considering oral as well as
documentary evidence and after considering the argument
advanced by the parties, the Court has passed the impugned
order. The trail Court has issued frame in Para-6, whether the
applicant- complainant proved that the amount which is
mentioned in the compliant is due and payable being a legal
enforceable debt and the cheque returned with an endorsement
is fall under the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act or not and after considering the fact the Court
was pleased to discuss all the relevant aspect and referred and
relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of "Dilipkumar
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9890/2024 ORDER DATED: 27/09/2024
undefined
Manharlal Vyas since deceased through legal heirs and another
Vs. Girdharlal Hirajibhai and another reported in 2023 (0)
AIJEL-HC 246940," and considering the fact of the case and
considering the decision of this Court, the trial Court was pleased
to acquit the respondent for the offences punishable under
Section 138 of the N.I. Act. It is also contended by the learned
advocate for the applicant that the trial Court has not considered
the evidence which is produced by the complainant in its true and
proper spirit, therefore, the impugned judgement and order
passed by the trial Court is erroneous, illegal and unjust and the
same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
2.1 It is also submitted that the finance was provided to the
father and the complaint is filed against his son and therefore,
the trial Court has considered the judgment of this Court, for
which the learned advocate for the applicant has without any
hesitation has urged that the observation made by this Court in
the reported decision, which is referred and relied by the trial
Court, he is enable to assail the said judgment and submitted
that the appropriate order may kindly be passed.
3. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Barot for the
respondent has supported the findings recorded by the trial
Court and urged that in the light of the order passed by this
Court in the above referred reported decision, the trial Court has
rightly considered the fact while rejecting the complaint and
acquitting the present respondent and no interference is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9890/2024 ORDER DATED: 27/09/2024
undefined
required to be called for. It is also submitted that the impugned
judgement and order passed by the trial Court requires to be
confirmed and the application filed by the applicant requires to
be dismissed.
4. I have heard learned advocates for the respective parties
and considering the facts of the case, this Court is of the opinion
that the judgment and order passed by the trial Court is in the
facts of the case and in consonance with the legal settled
principle and there is no infirmity and illegality in the order
passed by the trial Court. It is also relevant to refer and relied
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
"Chandrappa and others Vs. State of Karnataka reported in
2007(4) SCC 415", this Court is of the opinion that unless and
until there is any serious infirmity or any perversity in the
judgment of the trial Court, the present application can not be
entertained. This Court finds that in the light of the observation
made by the trial Court referring the reported judgment of this
Court, the present application deserves to be dismissed. The
present application is hereby dismissed.
5. As the application (leave to appeal) is dismissed, the
criminal appeal would not survive and is hereby dismissed.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
SALIM/
