Gujarat High Court
Rajubhai Rameshbhai Khatri vs State Of Gujarat on 28 November, 2019
Author: B.N. Karia
Bench: B.N. Karia
R/CR.RA/1533/2019 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 1533 of 2019
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (REGULAR BAIL) NO. 1 of 2019
In R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 1533 of 2019
==========================================================
RAJUBHAI RAMESHBHAI KHATRI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DIPEN DESAI(2481) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
Ms. M.H.Bhatt, APP (2) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA
Date : 28/11/2019
ORAL ORDER IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION
The present applicant has challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 19.10.2016 passed in Criminal Case No. 362 of 2013 by learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, N.I.Act. Court No.32, Ahmedabad which was confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court, Ahmedabad vide order dated 6.11.2019 in Criminal Appeal No. 868 of 2016.
Heard learned advocate for the applicant.
It is submitted by learned advocate for the applicant that impugned order passed by the Courts below are contrary to the facts and record of the case. That, respondent No.2complainant is enable to prove that the cheque was issued towards the legal enforceable due and no evidence whatsoever was adduced before the trial Court by the complainant. That, the Courts below have Page 1 of 4 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 29 03:01:27 IST 2019 R/CR.RA/1533/2019 ORDER clearly erred in not considering that the cheque itself was invalid. That, the cheque in which the amount in figures was stated as Rs.4,25,000/ and amount in words was stated as "Forty Lacs Twenty Five Thousand only" . That, because of such contradiction in words and figures, cheque itself is invalid which could not be accepted by the Bank. That, no conviction could be recorded under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act by the Courts below in such a invalid cheque. That, complainant himself in his cross examination has admitted the fact that he seen accused for the first time in the court. That, the complainant and accused were not knowing each other and therefore, how the cheque amount of Rs. 4,25,000/ would be given in cash to the accused by the complainant. However, the applicant has deposited Rs.45,000/ and thereafter, Rs.1,67,500/ before the Appellate Court. That, the applicant is at present in judicial custody.
Issue requires consideration.
Rule returnable on 26.12.2019.
Ms. M.H.Bhatt, learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent State.
ORDER IN CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (REGULAR BAIL) NO. 1 of 2019 Rule. Mr. M.H.Bhatt, learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent State.
It is submitted by learned advocate for the applicant that impugned order passed by the Courts below are contrary to the facts and record of the case. That, respondent No.2complainant is enable to prove that the cheque was issued towards the legal Page 2 of 4 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 29 03:01:27 IST 2019 R/CR.RA/1533/2019 ORDER enforceable due and no evidence whatsoever was adduced before the trial Court by the complainant. That, the Courts below have clearly erred in not considering that the cheque itself was invalid. That, the cheque in which the amount in figures was stated as Rs.4,25,000/ and amount in words was stated as "Forty Lacs Twenty Five Thousand only" . That, because of such contradiction in words and figures, cheque itself is invalid which could not be accepted by the Bank. That, no conviction could be recorded under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act by the Courts below in such a invalid cheque. That, complainant himself in his cross examination has admitted the fact that he seen accused for the first time in the court. That, the complainant and accused were not knowing each other and therefore, how the cheque amount of Rs. 4,25,000/ would be given in cash to the accused by the complainant. However, the applicant has deposited Rs.45,000/ and thereafter, Rs.1,67,500/ before the Appellate Court. That, the applicant is at present in judicial custody.
Learned APP appearing for the respondent State has strongly objected the submissions made by learned advocate for the applicant and submitted that considering the facts of the case, both the courts have rightly appreciated the prosecution case and convicted the present applicant.
Having heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and learned APP for respondent State, it appears that the applicant custody would not be required for further time. That, the present revision application is admitted by this Court and revision application preferred by the present applicant would require some time to adjudicate finally on merits. Hence, Page 3 of 4 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 29 03:01:27 IST 2019 R/CR.RA/1533/2019 ORDER considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and sentence imposed by both the Courts below, the prayer sought for in terms of paragraph No.9(A) shall be granted.
The sentence imposed upon the applicant vide judgment and order 19.10.2016 passed in Criminal Case No. 362 of 2013 by learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, N.I.Act. Court No.32, Ahmedabad as well as order dated 6.11.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 868 of 2016 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court, Ahmedabad is hereby suspended pending hearing and final disposal of the present revision application.
The applicant shall be released on regular bail by executing fresh bond of Rs.10,000/ (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) and one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court and shall proceed with the revision application as and when it may be listed, and he shall surrender his passport, if having, before the learned trial Court and shall not leave India without prior permission of this Court. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Direct service is permitted.
(B.N. KARIA, J) BEENA SHAH Page 4 of 4 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 29 03:01:27 IST 2019