Back
M. K. THAKKER
Hareshkumar Mansukhlal Vithalani – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M.K. THAKKER, J.
1. This appeal is filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Cr.P.C. referred hereinafter) challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 27.02.2023 passed by the learned Presiding Officer Special N.I. Act Court, Rajkot in Criminal Case No. 10103 of 2018, whereby the learned trial Court has exercised the power under Section 256 of the Cr.P.C. and dismissed the complaint and acquitted the respondent-accused from the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1886 (‘the N.I. Act’ hereinafter).
2. It is the case of the complainant that the complainant and the respondent-accused were friends and for the development of the business, the complainant lent the amount of Rs. 4 Lakh through RTGS to the respondent-accused on 04.03.2017. On repeated demand, the cheque bearing No. 019671 of Rs. 4 Lakh was issued dated 10.04.2018. On depositing the cheque with the Bank, it was returned with an endorsement ‘fund insufficient’ and therefore, after following the due procedure under the N.I. Act, a private complaint came to be filed.
2.1. Learned trial Court after recording the verification issued the summons to th
The court upheld the trial Court's acquittal under Section 256 due to the complainant's prolonged absence, emphasizing the necessity for diligence in prosecution.
The discretion to acquit a defendant due to the complainant's absence must be exercised judicially and fairly, and the court should ensure that the matter is decided on its merits.
The court emphasized the need for the trial court to exercise discretion judiciously and fairly before dismissing a case on technical grounds and highlighted the importance of providing opportunities....
The court upheld the dismissal of a complaint for non-prosecution, emphasizing the need for timely justice and the consequences of a complainant's repeated absence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of judicial and fair exercise of discretion under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, emphasizing the necessity of the co....
The discretion to dismiss a complaint for non-appearance must be exercised judiciously and fairly, without impairing the cause of administration of criminal justice.
The discretion under Section 256 of the Cr.P.C. must be exercised judicially and fairly, without impairing the cause of administration of criminal justice.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of complainant's cooperation in trial proceedings and the need to discourage dilatory tactics to ensure timely justice delivery.
The main legal point established is the need for judicial and fair exercise of discretion by the Magistrate under Section 256 of the Cr.P.C., and the importance of giving parties the opportunity to a....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
