Gujarat High Court
Siddhi Finance Thro Its Proprietor ... vs State Of Gujarat on 23 October, 2019
Author: B.N. Karia
Bench: B.N. Karia
R/CR.RA/1413/2019 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 1413 of 2019
==========================================================
SIDDHI FINANCE THRO ITS PROPRIETOR MEETA ROHIT MEHTA THRO
HER POA ROHIT RASIKLAL MEHTA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR FB BRAHMBHATT(1016) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR JK SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA
Date : 23/10/2019
ORAL ORDER
The applicant has challenged the judgment and order dated 25th January 2017 in Criminal Case No. 857 of 2014 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Negotiable Instruments Act Court No. 28, Ahmedabad as well as judgment and order dated 31.07.2019 in Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 2017 passed by the learned City Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Ahmadabad.
It was submitted by learned advocate for the applicant that however the respondent no.2 was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (In short "NI Page 1 of 2 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 24 03:50:57 IST 2019 R/CR.RA/1413/2019 ORDER Act") by the learned JMFC, the learned Sessions Court erroneously allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent No.2 holding that the complainant has failed to prove the legally enforceable debt. That, in fact, the complainant is running his business of cheque discounting and finance and due to the relation with the respondent no.2, the amount was given. That, signature in the cheque was never denied by the respondent no.2-accused. That, no licence was required under Section 5 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act. In support of his arguments, learned advocate for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment reported in 2008 GLR Page No.392. It was further submitted that mere raising dispute since cognate evidence with respect to the circumstances, presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act cannot be discharged.
Issue requires consideration.
Notice. Learned APP waives service of notice for and on behalf of the respondent-State.
(B.N. KARIA, J) K. S. DARJI Page 2 of 2 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 24 03:50:57 IST 2019