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

2025 Supreme(GUJ) 158

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION -
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT) NO. 327 of 2025 ==========================================================
PATEL SUNILBHAI RAMABHAI & ANR.
Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NK MAJMUDAR(430) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2 MR HK PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 06/03/2025

Petitioner Advocates:MR NK MAJMUDAR(430) ,Respondent Advocate: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2)

The court emphasized the necessity for the complainant to prove a legally enforceable debt in dishonor of cheque cases, granting interim relief due to insufficient evidence.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 438 and 442 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Quashing of conviction - Applicants challenged the conviction for dishonor of cheque, arguing that the complainant failed to prove a legally enforceable debt and that the trial court erred in its appreciation of evidence - The applicants were granted interim relief pending the revision application, subject to conditions including the deposit of the remaining cheque amount. (Paras 2, 3, 5)

(B) Criminal Procedure - Revision Application - The court emphasized the importance of proper evidence evaluation and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, highlighting the necessity for the complainant to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 3, 5)

Facts of the case:
The applicants were convicted under Section 138 of the N.I. Act for dishonoring a cheque of Rs.2,00,000/- and sentenced to one year of simple imprisonment. They contended that the complainant did not prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt.

Findings of Court:
The court granted interim relief, suspending the sentence and allowing the applicants to be released on bail upon depositing the remaining cheque amount, subject to specific conditions.

Issues: The main issues included whether the complainant proved the existence of a legally enforceable debt and the appropriateness of the trial court's conviction.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the conviction was questionable due to the lack of evidence proving the complainant's case, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of evidence in such cases.

Result: Interim relief granted; sentence suspended.

ORDER :

HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.

1. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent State.

2. By way of this application under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) , the applicants have prayed for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 17.03.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dakor, in Criminal Case No. 517/2000, whereby the Trial Court has been pleased to hold the applicants guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced to undergo SI of one year and also directed to pay double of the cheque amount i.e. Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation to the original complainant, as well as order dated 18.02.2025 by which learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Nadiad, dismissed Criminal Appeal No.114/2023 and confirmed the judgment and order of conviction of learned JMFC. Hence, this Revision Application is filed.

3. Learned advocate for the applicants has taken this Court through the factual matrix arising out of the present application and submitted that, the both the courts below have erred in recording conviction though the complainant failed to prove their case. Further, the learned Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence in its true perspective though the complainant failed to prove legally enforceable debt and the defense made by the complainant was not properly examined by the trial Court. Further, the accused have rebutted presumption and complainant has failed to prove case against the applicants. Considering the aforesaid facts, the applicants have good case and arguable case. Even without entering into merit of the case, the applicants have submitted that, the applicants are in custody. However, the applicants have deposited Rs.25,000/- before the trial Court and now are ready and willing to deposit remaining amount of Rs.1,75,000/- with the learned trial Court if the sentence imposed against the applicants is suspended pending the present criminal revision application.

4. Considering the aforesaid facts, subject to the applicants depositing Rs.1,75,000/- with the learned trial Court within a week, issue NOTICE making it returnable on 30.04.2025. Learned APP waives service of Notice for and on behalf of respondent No.1 – State of Gujarat.

5. Pending the present criminal revision application, interim relief in terms of paragraph No.12(D) is granted and sentence imposed upon the applicants vide order dated 17.03.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dakor, in Criminal Case No. 517/2000 as well as order dated 18.02.2025 passed by learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Nadiad, in Criminal Appeal No.114/2023 are suspended and the applicants shall be released on bail by executing a fresh bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, on conditions that applicants:-

(a) shall not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;

(b) shall not leave India without prior permission of this Court.

(c) shall furnish the present address of residence to the Court concerned at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without the prior permission of this Court.

(d) shall proceed with the Criminal Revision Application as and when listed and shall not prolong the hearing of the same.

(e) The Trial Court shall invest the said amount in a Fixed Deposit Receipts subject to outcome of the revision.

6. The authorities will release the applicants only if they are not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter.

Direct service is permitted. 

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 Back to top