SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(Guj) 256

Y.B.BHATT
ARVIND MANEKALAL TAILOR – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: K.H.BHAYA, K.P.RAVAL, YATIN SONI

Y. B. BHATT, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under section 378 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, at the instance of the original complainant, who challenges the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate, Court No. 9, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Case No. 677/92, whereby the second respondent herein was acquitted in respect of the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

( 2 ) THE principles laid down by the Supreme Court as regards the proper approach and perspective in relation to appeals against acquittals are by now well settled and do not require a detailed discussion. Suffice it to say that the appellate courts are under an obligation not to allow such appeals lightly or on a casual basis, unless the findings recorded on the basis of the evidence on record are grossly unjust, patently unsustainable or based on no evidence at all. On the facts of the present case I find that such is not the case.

( 3 ) THE facts which are not in dispute and/or indisputable are as under:3. 1 the accused had issued a cheque in favour of the complainant dated 15th March 1991 for Rs. 2 lacs (Exh. 16), representing part of the purchase price of three shops, purchase













Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top