Back
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO, J
SHRIRAM FINANCE LTD(KNOWN AS SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD) THRO KULDEEPSINH NIRMLSINH ZALA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
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 order passed below Exh. 1 dated 12.04.2023 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surendranagar (hereinafter referred to as the “learned Trial Court”) in Criminal Case No. 178/2019, whereby, the learned Trial Court was pleased to dismiss the case for default for non-prosecution.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Manish Patel for the applicant, learned advocate Mr. A.R. Shah for the respondent no. 2 and learned APP Ms. Dhwani Tripathi for the respondent state.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Manish Patel for the applicant submits that the applicant had filed the criminal case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to “the Act” for short) before the learned 3rd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surendranagar and the respondent no. 2 had taken a loan from the applicant – Shriram Finance Ltd. for vehicle no. GJ-13-M-9603. The respondent no. 2 had given cheque no. 875888 dated 20.11.2018 for Rs. 5,40,017/- and cheque no. 875889 dated 2
Leave to appeal granted as trial court dismissed the case without considering the applicant's submitted documents and presence in another court.
The absence of an advocate due to a bonafide mistake can justify reconsideration of a dismissal for want of prosecution under Section 256 of the Cr.P.C.
The absence of a party's advocate due to a bona fide mistake should not result in dismissal of a case, and courts must properly consider all evidence before making such decisions.
The court emphasized the necessity for the Trial Court to properly appreciate all evidence and documents, leading to the granting of leave to appeal against acquittal under Section 378(4) of the Code....
The statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act must be applied in favor of the holder in due course unless effectively rebutted by the accused.
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act must be drawn in favor of the holder unless rebutted, and misinterpretation of evidence by the Trial Court can lead to a successful....
The court emphasized the importance of proper evidence evaluation in criminal cases, allowing the applicant to appeal the acquittal based on perceived misappreciation of evidence.
The Court considered the reasonable explanation for absence and granted leave to appeal in the interest of justice.
The trial court must consider all evidence before dismissing a case for absence, ensuring the right to a fair trial is upheld.
The trial court's failure to properly appreciate evidence warrants reconsideration of the acquittal under Section 138 of the NI Act.
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
