Gujarat High Court
Rajput Vijaysinh Natwarsinh ... vs State Of Gujarat on 21 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4344/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 4344 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4424 of 2025
==========================================================
RAJPUT VIJAYSINH NATWARSINH PROPRIETOR OF - JAY GOPAL TRADING
COMPANY
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS ALPA J DAVE(3924) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ROHAN SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 21/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for and
on behalf of the respondent - State of Gujarat.
[1.0] By way of present batch of petitions, the petitioner has
assailed the order/s passed below purshis filed by the present
petitioner - accused in pending Criminal Appeal by the learned
4th Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana at Visnagar.
[1.1] When the matters are called out, none appears for the
applicant. With the assistance of learned APP the matter is taken
up for hearing.
[2.0] The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Unjha
convicted the present petitioner - accused in Criminal Case filed
under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for
short "NI Act") and has been pleased to convict the present
petitioner - accused and sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of six months and also directed the
petitioner - accused to make payment of cheque amount with
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4344/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2025
undefined
9% interest till date of payment towards compensation failing
which further simple imprisonment of six months has been
imposed.
[2.1] Being aggrieved with the said conviction, the petitioner filed
Criminal Appeal before the learned 4th Additional Sessions
Judge, Visnagar alongwith application under Section 389(1) of
the CrPC for suspension of order of conviction and sentence and
the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Visnagar has been
pleased to suspend the judgment and order of conviction and
sentence by imposing condition upon the petitioner to deposit
20% of the cheque amount within a period of 30 days. The said
cheque amount came to be deposited by the petitioner with the
learned appellate Court.
[2.2] After deposit of 20% of the cheque amount by the petitioner
- accused, the original complainant - respondent No.2 herein
filed a purshis seeking permission to withdraw the said 20% of
the cheque amount deposited by the petitioner - accused in
respective criminal appeals, which purshis / request has been
accepted by the learned 4 th Additional Sessions Judge subject to
condition that if the petitioner - accused succeeds in criminal
appeals then the respondent No.2 herein - original complainant
shall have to repay the said 20% amount alongwith existing FD
rate of interest.
[2.3] By way of present batch of petitions, the petitioner -
accused has challenged the said order.
[3.0] Perusing the grievance of the petitioner and the nature of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4344/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2025
undefined
order under challenge, prima facie, it appears that under Section
143(a) of the NI Act, impugned order is passed and even
otherwise, under Section 148(3) of the NI Act, which reads as
under, appellate Court has power to pass such order:
"148(3). The Appellate Court may direct the release of the
amount deposited by the appellant to the complainant at
any time during the pendency of the appeal:
Provided that if the appellant is acquitted, the Court shall
direct the complainant to repay to the appellant the amount
so released, with interest at the bank rate as published by
the Reserve Bank of India, prevalent at the beginning of the
relevant financial year, within sixty days from the date of
the order, or within such further period not exceeding thirty
days as may be directed by the Court on sufficient cause
being shown by the complainant.]"
Hence, prima facie, this Court is of the considered view
that there is no any perversity and illegality in the impugned
order and no cause exists to interfere with the same in exercise
of powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
[4.0] In view of the above, no case is made out to entertain the
present petitions as this Court is of the considered view that
present litigation has been filed only with a view to protract the
proceeding of criminal appeals. Hence, present petitions are
dismissed in limine. Rule is hereby discharged in each of the
petitions.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ALI
