Gujarat High Court
M/S. Kesar Impex - Partnership Firm, ... vs State Of Gujarat on 10 August, 2021
Author: B.N. Karia
Bench: B.N. Karia
R/SCR.A/1925/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/08/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1925 of 2017
With
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4465 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed Yes
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes
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 ?
==========================================================
M/S. KESAR IMPEX - PARTNERSHIP FIRM, (THRO.PETITIONER NO. 2&3
ARE PARTNER) & 2 other(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance: [Special Criminal Application No. 1925 of 2017 ]
Mr. Rushabh Shah for Mr. Hardik H.Dave & Mr. A.H.Dave (8333) for the
Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR SHAKEEL A QURESHI(1077) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
Mr. H.K.Patel, APP (2) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
Appearance: [Special Criminal Application No. 4465 of 2017
Mr. Shakeel Qureshi, ld. Adovcate for Mr. Mrugen Purohit for the Applicant(s)
No. 1
MR Rushabh Shah, ld. Advocate for Mr. H.H.Dave & Mr. A.H.Dave(1077) for
the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 and 3
Mr. H.K.Patel, APP (2) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA
Date : 10/08/2021
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Shakeel Qureshi, learned advocate Page 1 of 17 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 07:25:53 IST 2022 R/SCR.A/1925/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/08/2021 waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.2 in Special Criminal Application No. 1925 of 2017 and Mr. Rushabh Shah, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 in Special Criminal Application No. 4465 of 2017.
2. By way of these applications, applicants in both these applications have approached this Court under Article 226, 14 and 227 of the Constitution of India as well as Section 482 of Cr.P.C 1973 (For short "The Code") seeking various reliefs.
3. In Criminal Misc. Application No. 1925 of 2017, the applicants have requested to quash and set aside the order dated 8 th March, 2017 passed below exh. 18 in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2016 by the learned 2nd (Ad-hoc) Additional District & Sessions Judge, Valsad qua depositing of 25% of the cheque amount as precondition.
4. The applicant, in Special Criminal Application No. 4465 of 2016, has requested to quash and set aside the order passed by the learned 2 nd (Ad-hoc) Additional District and Sessions Judge, Valsad below exh. 18 in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2016 permitting the respondents -accused to produce additional evidence before the trial Court by allowing Page 2 of 17 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 07:25:53 IST 2022 R/SCR.A/1925/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/08/2021 application below exh.18.
5. In Special Criminal Application 1925 of 2017, the applicant-accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act as alleged in the complaint u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act registered by respondent No.2 for dishonour of cheque bearing No. 000239-000243 dated 9th June, 2014 each of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lacs only).
6. It appears that trial Court, vide judgment and order dated 8th March, 2017, convicted the applicants for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years and fine of double amount of cheques i.e (Rs.2,50,00,000 x 2 = Rs.5,00,00,000/- ) (Rupees Five Crores only) imposed to accused No.1- Keshar Impex, being partnership firm, which is to be paid by the accused No.2 and 3 equally being partners of accused No.1 and out of which, 90% the fine amount was ordered to be given to the complainant as compensation as per section 357 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. In case of failure of paying fine amount, further imprisonment of 6 months was awarded.
7. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of conviction, the Page 3 of 17 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 07:25:53 IST 2022 R/SCR.A/1925/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/08/2021 applicants filed an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2016 before the Sessions Court at Valsad. During the pendency of the appeal, applicants filed an application below exh.18 to lead the additional evidence under section 391 of the Cr.P.C. On the basis of such application, it was contended that the cheque in dispute was handed over to Mr. Samir Desai by the applicants who was employee of the complainant by way of security. The same cheques were misused by the complainant and false complaint was lodged by him. As Mr. Samir Desai was material witness and he had received letter on 9 th June, 2014 on behalf of the complainant, it was requested to permit the applicants- accused to examine him before the trial Court and permit to produce additional evidence.
8. Mr. Rushabh Shah, learned advocate appearing for Mr. H.H.Dave and Mr. A.H.Dave, learned advocates for the applicants in Special Criminal Application No.1925 of 2017 has submitted that the order of the learned Sessions Judge qua depositing 25% of the cheque amount is erroneous and without jurisdiction while deciding application under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ['Code' for short]. It is further submitted that the sentence is already suspended by the Court and a condition of depositing 25% of the cheque amount is imposed in an application under Section 391 of the Code, which is, prima facie, Page 4 of 17 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 07:25:53 IST 2022 R/SCR.A/1925/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/08/2021 erroneous and requires to be quashed and set aside. It is further submitted that an application Exh.18 was given by the present applicants under Section 391 of the Code in Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2016 alongwith relevant documents. It is also submitted that the learned Sessions Court Court has rightly observed that it is the duty of the Court to find out the truth and there is no possibility of causing any prejudice to the either side/complainant if the person namely, Samir Desai would be examined as witness by the applicants-accused before the learned trial Court. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court has rightly satisfied itself by permitting the petitioner to examine the witness and to produce additional evidence as it was quite necessary. When a reasoned order is passed by the learned Sessions Court directing the learned trial Court to record the evidence of the present applicants-accused, no illegality is committed by the learned Sessions Court in accepting the prayer of the present applicants by permitting him to examine the witness as well as to provide additional documents.
8.1 In support of his arguments, learned advocate for the applicants has relied upon the following judgments:-
1. Rambhau and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in Appeal (Cri.) No. 636 of 1995.
2. Jayanti Parshottam Machhi @ Jayanti Parshottam Tandel Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2015(3)GLR 1978.Page 5 of 17 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 07:25:53 IST 2022
R/SCR.A/1925/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/08/2021
3. Gautambhai Babubhai @ Shantibhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2012(2) GLR 1073.
4. Rameshbhai Jayendrabhai Modi Vs. State of Gujarat [the judgement & order passed by this Court in Criminal Revision Application No. 222 of 2012 ] It is requested to quash and set aside the order qua directing applicants to deposit 25% of the cheque amount by allowing Special Criminal Application No. 1925 of 2017 and dismiss Special Criminal Application No. 4465 of 2017.
9. Mr. Shakil Qureshi, learned advocate appearing for Mr. Mrugen Purohit, learned advocate for the applicant in Special Criminal Application No.4465 of 2017 has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Court in Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2016 below Exh.18 permitting the accused persons to examine the witness as well as to produce additional documents, is erroneous and bad in law. It is further submitted that an application under Section 391 of the Code cannot be pressed into service in order to fill-up the lacuna. It is further submitted that before the Court of learned JMFC, there was ample opportunity available with the accused to examine the witness namely, Samir Desai, however, he was not examined and on the contrary, vide Exh.237, in cross examination, witness has declined to examine the said witness and only after the conviction was imposed, at the appellate stage, Page 6 of 17 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 07:25:53 IST 2022 R/SCR.A/1925/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/08/2021 such application was filed by the accused, which clearly reveals that the application is filed to fill-up the lacuna and to prolong the appeal proceedings and therefore also, it is submitted that the Sessions Court ought to have rejected the said application. It is further submitted that additional evidence can be adduced at appellate stage only in exceptional circumstances to remove the irregularity where circumstances so warrants in public interest and such powers cannot be pressed into service in order to fill-up the lacuna. It is further submitted that by permitting the accused to adduce additional evidence, great prejudice would be caused to the complainant as the accused have voluntarily refused to avail the opportunity which was made available and thereby, they are stopped by law of estoppel. It is further submitted that at an appeal stage, without deciding the appeal on merits, the accused cannot be permitted to produce additional evidence or permit to examine any witness, more particularly, no due diligence have been shown.Hence, it is requested by learned advocate for the applicant in Special Criminal Application No.4465 of 2017 to allow the said petition and to quash and set aside the impugned order.
9.1 In support of his arguments, learned advocate for the applicant has relied upon the following judgements :-
1. Ajay Kumar Garg Vs. Gaurav and Another reported in (2017) 11 SCC 469.Page 7 of 17 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 07:25:53 IST 2022
R/SCR.A/1925/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/08/2021
2. State of Gujarat Vs. Rajubhai Dhamirbhai Bariya and others reported in 2004 CRI.L.J.771.
3. Rajvinder Singh Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2016) 14 SCC
671.
4. Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col. S.S.Deswal and others Vs. Virender Gandhi reported in Criminal Appeal Nos. 917-944 of 2019.
10. On the other hand, Mr. H.K.Patel, Learned APP appearing for the State has submitted that the applicants had enough opportunity and time to make an application to examine persons, who are now proposed to be examined at Appellate stage. It is further submitted that even in the statement recorded u/s. 313 of Cr.P.C, the applicants could have asked for examining the witness namely Mr. Samir Desai but at this juncture also, no such plea was raised. It is further submitted that by taking recourse to Section 391 of Cr.P.C, the applicants cannot improve upon their case or to introduce a new case by leading further evidence. It is further submitted that the evidence as sought for before the trial Court and further evidence was not necessary particularly when it would have effect of unduly protecting the case. It is further submitted that powers under Section 391 of Cr.P.C are wide but wider power ought to have been restraint in exercising those powers.
11. Learned APP for the respondent -State has supported the arguments of learned advocate for the respondent No.2 and requested to Page 8 of 17 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 07:25:53 IST 2022 R/SCR.A/1925/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/08/2021 pass appropriate order. If we see the prayer of the applicants in the application below exh. 18 in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2016 was for seeking examination of abovenamed person was in the contest of their case that the cheque in dispute was handed over to the said person by way of security on behalf of the complainant from the applicants side which was misused and false complaint was filed under Section 138 N.I.Act. Learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the parties, was pleased to allow the application below Exh.18 permitting the applicants to produce their evidence before the Court of learned Principal Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vapi with a precondition to deposit 25% amount of the cheque by the applicants within a period of 5 days. It was further ordered that the additional evidence would be recorded by the trial Court within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the order passed by the Sessions Court and after recording the additional evidence, record and proceedings should be forwarded to the Sessions Court along with panchnama.
12. At this juncture, this Court would like to refer Section 391 of Cr.P.C which reads as under:-
391. Appellate Court may take further evidence or direct it to be taken.
(1) In dealing with any appeal under this Chapter, the Appellate Court, if it thinks additional evidence to be necessary, shall record its reasons and may either take such evidence itself, or direct it to be taken by a Page 9 of 17 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 07:25:53 IST 2022 R/SCR.A/1925/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/08/2021 Magistrate, or when the Appellate Court is a High Court, by a Court of Session or a Magistrate.
(2) When the additional evidence is taken by the Court of Session or the Magistrate, it or he shall certify such evidence to the Appellate Court, and such Court shall thereupon proceed to dispose of the appeal. (3) The accused or his pleader shall have the right to be present when the additional evidence is taken.
(4) The taking of evidence under this section shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter XXIII, as if it were an inquiry.
Section 391 forms an exception to the general rule that an appeal must be decided on the evidence which was before the trial Court. Its manifest object is the prevention of a guilty man's escape through some careless or ignorant proceedings of a trial Court or the vindication of an innocent person wrongly accused where the trial Court through some carelessness or ignorance has omitted to record the evidence of the circumstances essential to the elucidation of the truth. Being an exception to the general rule the powers under it must always be exercised with circumspection, and the doing of justice should be the goal invariably aimed for.
13. It appears that learned Sessions Judge, Valsad, vide order dated 8 th March, 2017, has observed that till the additional evidence is recorded and record and proceedings is returned back, the proceeding of the appeal i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2016 shall be stayed. It appears that before the trial Court in Criminal Case No. 2304 of 2014 with a view to give Page 10 of 17 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 07:25:53 IST 2022 R/SCR.A/1925/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/08/2021 opportunity to the accused-applicants, further statement was recorded u/s. 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure wherein, accused had taken the defence that a false complaint was lodged against them. Accused wanted to examine himself and wanted to depose. Therefore, his deposition is also recorded and certificate from the Post Officer was also produced which was exhibited at Exh. 239. Thereafter, the applicant- accused had filed closing pursis vide exh. 242 declaring that he did not want to lead any oral or documentary evidence in the matter. This Court would like to refer the cross examination of Mr. Ashok Tulsidas Bhanushali examined (vide exh. 237) before the trial Court. In his cross examination, he has admitted that he is not ready to bring Mr. Samir Desai as defence witness. He has further admitted that there is no proof of handing the cheques to Mr. Samir Desai. The cheques were handed over to Mr. Samir Desai in front of his friends. Defence of this witness from the applicants handing over the cheques in front of friends, none of these friends were called upon as witnesses, in support of his contention. In-spite of giving opportunity by the trial Court, neither Mr. Samir Desai was examined nor any friends in front of them the alleged cheques were given to Mr. Samir Desai. On behalf of the complainant as stated before the Sessions Court, for the first time in the application at exh. 18 request was made to permit the witness. On the contrary, witness Mr. Ashok Tulsidas Bhanushali, in his deposition at exh. 237 before the trial Court, has Page 11 of 17 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 07:25:53 IST 2022 R/SCR.A/1925/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/08/2021 denied to examine Mr. Samir Desai as defence witness. After convicting the applicants vide order dated 18th March, 2016 by learned Additional JMFC Vapi in Criminal Case No. 2034 of 2014, in an Appeal i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2016 preferred by them application below exh.18 was submitted with a prayer to permit the applicants to examine Mr. Samir Desai, employee of the complainant to whom the cheques were handed over by way of security. Till then, no prayer was made by the applicants to examine the said witness or to produce any additional evidence as prayed in his Appeal i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2016.
14. Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ashok Tshering Bhutia Vs. State of Sikkim reported in 2011 LawSuit (SC) 141 observed as under :-
[15] Additional evidence at appellate stage is permissible, in case of a failure of justice. However, such power must be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional suitable cases where the court is satisfied that directing additional evidence would serve the interests of justice. It would depend upon the facts and circumstances of an individual case as to whether such permission should be granted having due regard to the concepts of fair play, justice and the well being of society. Such an application for taking additional evidence must be decided objectively, just to cure the irregularity. The primary object of the provisions of Section 391 Code of Criminal Procedure is the prevention of a guilty man's escape through some careless or ignorant action on part of the prosecution before the court or for vindication of an innocent person wrongfully accused, where the court omitted to record the circumstances essential to elucidation of truth. Generally, it should be invoked when formal proof for the prosecution is necessary. Vide Rajeswar Prasad Misra v. The State of West Bengal and Anr., AIR 1965 SC 1887 Ratilal Bhanji Mithani v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. , AIR 1971 SC 1630 Rambhau and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra , AIR 2001 SC 2120 Anil Sharma and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand , AIR 2004 SC 2294 Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. , (2004) 4 SCC 158 and Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) , AIR 2010 SC 2352.Page 12 of 17 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 07:25:53 IST 2022
R/SCR.A/1925/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/08/2021 [17] In Rambhau (supra), a larger Bench of this Court held as under:
Incidentally, Section 391 forms an exception to the general rule that an Appeal must be decided on the evidence which was before the Trial Court and the powers being an exception shall always have to be exercised with caution and circumspection so as to meet the ends of justice. Be it noted further that the doctrine of finality of judicial proceedings does not stand annulled or affected in any way by reason of exercise of power under Section 391 since the same avoids a de novo trial. It is not to fill up the lacuna but to subserve the ends of justice. Needless to record that on an analysis of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, Section 391 is thus akin to Order 41, Rule 27 of the C.P. Code.
(Emphasis added) [18] In view of the above, the law on the point can be summarised to the effect that additional evidence can be taken at the appellate stage in exceptional circumstances, to remove an irregularity, where the circumstances so warrant in public interest. Generally, such power is exercised to have formal proof of the documents etc. just to meet the ends of justice. However, the provisions of Section 391 Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be pressed into service in order to fill up lacunae in the prosecution's case.
15. In the instant case, sufficient opportunity was available with the applicants to examine witness namely Mr. Samir Desai before the trial Court as defence witness. Mr. Ashok Tulsidas Bhanushali was also examined at exh.237 and he has clearly denied to bring upon the said witness Mr. Samir Desai as defence witness. The other friends in their presence the cheques were handed over to Mr. Samir Desai were also not called for to examine as witnesses before the trial Court. After convicting by the trial Court for the first time, the dispute is raised by the applicants that witness was required to be examined from the applicant's side. That, the cheques were handed over to him and thereafter, it was misused. Power under Section 391 of Cr.P.C can not be exercised not fill up lacunae except to subserve the ends of justices.
Page 13 of 17 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 07:25:53 IST 2022 R/SCR.A/1925/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/08/2021
16. This Court has relied upon the judgment rendered in case of Ravindrabhai @ John Lakhubhai Vaghela Vs. State of Gujarat 2017(0) AIJEL (HC) 238-289, wherein in para 52,53 it is observed and reproduced hereinafter rendered in case of Asim @ Munmun @ Asif Abdulkarim Solanki Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2019 Lawsuit (Guj) 678.
"52. Thus, from the above, it is crystal clear that application for taking additional evidence on record at an appellate stage, even if filed during the pendency of the appeal, is to be heard at the time of final hearing of the appeal at a stage when after appreciating the evidence on record, the court reaches the conclusion that additional evidence was required to be taken on record in order to pronounce the judgment or for any other substantial cause. In case, application for taking additional evidence on record has been considered and allowed prior to the hearing of the appeal, the order being a product of total and complete non application of mind, as to whether such evidence is required to be taken on record to pronounce the judgment or not, remains inconsequential/inexecutable and is liable to be ignored.
53. In the instant case, the application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC was filed on 6.4.1998 and it was allowed on 28.4.1999 though the first appeal was heard and disposed of on 15.10.1999. In view of law referred to hereinabove, the order dated 28.4.1999 is just to be ignored. 85.7 The first appellate court committed a grave error in deciding the application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC much prior to the hearing of the appeal. Thus, the order allowing the said application is liable to be ignored as the same had been passed in gross violation of the statutory requirement."
11. Though the aforesaid decision is related to civil proceedings, but as held by the Apex Court the analogy on the issue of leading additional evidence is also similar to that of Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC and, therefore, when such is the situation prevailing on record, we deem it appropriate not to accept the application.
12. Yet another decision delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Rambhau & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, 2001 AIR(SC) 2120, is taken into consideration while arriving at an opinion not to accept the application at this stage of the proceedings. Relevant observations of the said decision are in Para.4 which is quoted, thus;
"4. Incidentally, Section 391 forms an exception to the general rule that an Page 14 of 17 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 07:25:53 IST 2022 R/SCR.A/1925/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/08/2021 Appeal must be decided on the evidence which was before the Trial Court and the powers being an exception shall always have to be exercised with caution and circumspection so as to meet the ends of justice. Be it noted further that the doctrine of finality of judicial proceedings does not stand annulled or affected in any way by reason of exercise of power under Section 391 since the same avoids a de novo trial. It is not to fill up the lacuna but to sub serve the ends of justice. Needless to record that on an analysis of the Civil Procedure Code, Section 391 is thus akin to Order 41, Rule 27 of the C.P.Code."
17. In the aforesaid premise, this Court is of the opinion that making prayer before the Appellate Court by the present applicants to examine his witness Mr. Samir Desai before the trial Court and produce additional evidence for the first time was with a view to fill up the lacuna in the evidence. Learned Sessions Judge cannot exercise the power under Section 391 of Cr.P.C since the same avoids de nova trial. Sufficient opportunity was available with the applicants to examine his witness. He has enough opportunity before the trial Court to examine even friends, in whose presence the cheques were given to Mr. Samir Desai, were also not examined before the trial Court. Witness namely Ashok Tulsidas Bhanushali examined from the defence side at exh. 237 submitted that he is not ready to bring Mr. Sameer Desai as defence witness. In his statement u/s. 313 of Cr.P.C, the accused wanted to examine himself and wanted to depose before the trial Court and in his deposition was recorded vide exh. 237. He has produced certificate from Post Office vide exh. 239 and thereafter closing pursis vide exh. 242 was filed declaring that he did not want to lead any further oral as well as Page 15 of 17 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 07:25:53 IST 2022 R/SCR.A/1925/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/08/2021 documentary evidence in this matter. Now, before the Appellate Court, the applicants have precluded to raise their grievance permitting to examine his witness in support of his case or to produce any additional evidence. Learned Sessions Judge has committed grave error in permitting the applicants to produce additional evidence by allowing application below exh.18 just to fill up the the lacuna in his defence as applicants themselves have denied by not showing their readiness to examine the same witness in his defence. Further, before opening of appeal for final hearing, at this stage, such application would not be permissible to allow without entering into the merits and demerits of the appeal. That, before opening of an appeal for final hearing, the application for additional evidence would be a pre-mature exercise and it would unnecessarily prejudice the rights of the parties. The intention of the provision is to empower the Appellate Court to see that justice is done between the prosecutes and prosecuted. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that impugned order passed by the learned 2 nd Ad-hoc Additional District and Sessions Judge Valsad dated 8 th March, 2017 below application exh. 18 in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2016 permitting the applicants to produce additional evidence directing the learned trial Court to record the evidence within a period of two months is required to be quashed and set aside and is hereby quashed and set aside. Subsequent order of depositing 25% of cheque amount in application u/s. Page 16 of 17 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 07:25:53 IST 2022 R/SCR.A/1925/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/08/2021 Exh.391 of Cr.P.C would also goes along with impugned order.Accordingly, both these applications are allowed with the aforesaid observations.
18. Learned Sessions Judge, Vapi Dist. Valsad shall decide Criminal Appeal 17 of 2016 on merits within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of this order. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
19. The judgment relied upon by the learned advocates for the respective parties are based on the facts of each case and therefore, they are not required to be discussed by this Court at length.
(B.N. KARIA, J) BEENA SHAH Page 17 of 17 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 07:25:53 IST 2022