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

2025 Supreme(GUJ) 42

HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
S.V. PINTO, J
JITENDRAKUMAR JAYANTILAL VARIA – Appellant
Versus
ALLAUDDIN SAFARUDDIN SHAIKH – Respondent


Petitioner Advocates:MR.DARSHAN A. DAVE(7921) ,Respondent Advocate:

Judgement Key Points

In a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NIA), the filing of additional documents generally depends on the stage of the proceedings and the discretion of the court. Typically, during the trial, parties are allowed to submit evidence and documents to substantiate their claims or defenses.

However, once the trial concludes and a judgment is delivered, the scope for submitting additional documents becomes limited, and such submissions may require permission from the court or may be considered only in exceptional circumstances.

In the context of the provided case, the court considered various documents, including the partnership deed and bank statements, during the trial, which indicates that documentary evidence is integral to establishing the facts of the case (!) (!) .

Therefore, while additional documents can generally be filed during the trial phase to support a complaint under Section 138, their acceptance after the conclusion of the trial or after a judgment is at the discretion of the court, often requiring a formal application or leave of the court.

In summary, additional documents can be filed in a complaint under Section 138 of NIA primarily during the trial stage, subject to the court's approval, and are less likely to be admitted once the trial has concluded unless exceptional circumstances justify their consideration.


ORDER :

S.V. PINTO, J.

1. The present application is filed by the applicant – original complainant under Section 378(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking leave to file an appeal against the judgement and order dated 01.06.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Halol (hereinafter referred to as the “learned Trial Court”) in Criminal Case No. 551/2020, whereby, the learned Trial Court was pleased to acquit the accused from the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to “the NI Act” for short).

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Darshan Dave for the applicant and learned APP Ms. Dhwani Tripathi for the respondent no. 2 – State.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Darshan Dave for the applicant submits that as per the case of the applicant, the applicant and the respondent no. 1 had business relations and they were to enter into a partnership business for which the partnership deed was executed which is produced at Exh. 14 and the applicant had given an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-, Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/-, in all Rs. 5 lakhs to the respondent no. 1. That the respondent no. 1 did not start the business as per the partnership deed and

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