Gujarat High Court
Kararhussain Ikrarhussain Siddhiqui vs State Of Gujarat on 7 August, 2019
Author: R.P.Dholaria
Bench: R.P.Dholaria
R/CR.MA/7374/2019 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 7374 of 2019
==========================================================
KARARHUSSAIN IKRARHUSSAIN SIDDHIQUI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RAMNANDAN SINGH(1126) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
BHUPENDRAKUMAR G CHAVDA(8140) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
JAY B TRIVEDI(7474) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR D V KANSARA(7498) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS HANSA PUNANI ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA
Date : 07/08/2019
ORAL ORDER
This is an application preferred by the applicant-original complainant under section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for leave to appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 7.8.2018 passed in Criminal case No. 1601/2016 by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ankleshwar.
Rule. Ms. Hansa Punani learned APP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent-State and Mr. D.V Kansara, learned advocate waives service of rule on behalf of the private respondent.
Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
Considering the averments made in the application supported by the affidavit, as well as arguments advanced by Page 1 of 2 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 09 21:27:57 IST 2019 R/CR.MA/7374/2019 ORDER learned advocate for the applicant, stating that the complainant in association with one Ravibhai Bajaj entered into an agreement of sale and in lieu thereof they had paid Rs 1,50,00,000/- and as the sale could not be materialised the accused entered into an memorandum of understanding but did not returned the money with compensation amounting to Rs 2 crores and 55 lakhs. Such memorandum of understanding as well as previous agreement and other documents had been permitted before the trial court, but the trial court wrongfully recorded the finding that the same was not legally enforceable debt and the complainant failed to prove that Rs 1,50,00,000/- was given to the accused and further contended that the learned trial court has not appropriately appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective. It appears that leave to appeal deserves to be granted. Accordingly this application is allowed in terms of para 8(B). Rule is made absolute.
(R.P.DHOLARIA, J) MARY VADAKKAN Page 2 of 2 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 09 21:27:57 IST 2019