Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Hiteshkumar Pulin Gupta vs State Of Gujarat on 7 April, 2026
Author: Pankaj Mithal
Bench: Pankaj Mithal
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. OF 2026
(@ SLP (CRL.) NOS.4026-4027 OF 2024)
HITESHKUMAR PULIN GUPTA APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. It appears that M/s. Jerum Plastics issued two cheques of Rs. 5,00,000/- each in the name of complainant M/s. Ramanand Plastics. The said two cheques were dishonored for want of “insufficient funds” in the account.
4. Therefore, one of the partners of M/s. Ramanand Plastics i.e. Hiteshkumar Pulin Gupta lodged a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 regarding the dishonor of the above cheques.
5. The Trial Court acquitted the respondent No.2 on the ground that M/s. Ramanand Plastics was not a registered firm and as such, bar of Section 69(2) of the Partnership Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by GEETA AHUJA Date: 2026.04.09 Act, 1932 (for short ‘the Act’) comes into play and it 10:26:22 IST Reason: cannot enforce the liability.
1
6. The matter was taken in appeal to the High Court, wherein the High Court held that there is sufficient evidence on record to establish that the complainant M/s. Ramanand Plastics is a registered firm. However, the High Court made out a new case beyond the pleadings and held that since the complainant had no consent of the other partners to lodge the complaint, it was within the teeth of Clause 17 of the Partnership Deed and as such, the complaint itself was not maintainable.
7. We have gone through the documents on record and find that the complainant in the complaint has categorically stated that he had the authority to file the complaint. On the other hand, M/s. Jerum Plastics had nowhere pleaded in response to the complaint that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant Hiteshkumar Pulin Gupta, one of the partners was not having consent of other partners to lodge the said complaint.
8. In view of the above, the High Court of its own has made out a new case to non-suit the complainant.
9. In our opinion, the High Court could not have travelled beyond what has been pleaded by the parties.
10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the High Court has erred in passing the impugned judgment and order maintaining the acquittal of M/s Jerum Plastics.
11. In the facts and circumstances of the case and 2 looking to the time gap between issuance of cheques and as of date, we are of the opinion that equity will be sub-served if the respondent M/s. Jerum Plastics compensate the appellant i.e. M/s. Ramanand Plastics with the cheques amount plus interest as compensation.
12. Accordingly, we direct respondent-M/s.Jerum Plastics to pay the sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- equivalent to the cheques amount to M/s. Ramanand Plastics within a period of four weeks from today and interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the issuance of the cheques till the payment of the aforesaid amount.
13. The interest amount shall be payable by it, within a further period of two weeks.
14. In the event of default in payment of either of the above amounts, the Managing Partner of M/s. Jerum Plastics (Prakashbhai Prajapati) would undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
15. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
.......................J. (PANKAJ MITHAL) .......................J. (S.V.N. BHATTI) NEW DELHI 07th APRIL, 2026.
GA
3
ITEM NO.29 COURT NO.9 SECTION II-E
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.) NO(S). 4026- 4027/2024 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22-12-2023 in CRMA No. 1/2023 22-12-2023 in CLRA No. 105/2017 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad] HITESHKUMAR PULIN GUPTA PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. RESPONDENT(S) [FOR FINAL DISPOSAL] (IA No. 70472/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 79097/2024 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Date : 07-04-2026 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI For Petitioner(s) Mr. Narendra Jain, Adv.
Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Ms. Apoorva Anand, Adv.
Mr. Badal Dwevedi, Adv.
Mr. Pritam Bishwas, Adv.
Mr. Prem Sunder Jha, AOR Mr. Abhay Singh Malik, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Nagpal, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the court made the following O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeals stand disposed of in terms of the signed order. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(Nidhi Mathur) (Geeta Ahuja) Court Master (NSH) Deputy Registrar
(Signed Order is placed on the file) 4