HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
S.V. PINTO, J
SUNIL MOHANLAL MALKANI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
ORDER :
(S. V. PINTO, J.)
1. The present application is filed by the applicant – original complainant under Section 419(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Surakhsha Sanhita , 2023 seeking leave to file an appeal against the order passed below Exh. 1 dated 12.12.2024 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Navsari (hereinafter referred to as the “learned Trial Court”) in Criminal Case No. 13564/2020, whereby, the learned Trial Court was pleased to dismiss the case for default for non-prosecution.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Shriraj Shah for the applicant and learned APP Ms. Dhwani Tripathi for the respondent state.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Shriraj Shah 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Navsari and the summon was issued to the respondent no. 2 which was received by his father and along with the summon, the statement of his father was recorded, wherein, he has stated that the respondent no. 2 is residing in Himachal Pradesh. The learned Trial Court issued warrants to the respondent no. 2 which cou
The court granted leave to appeal, emphasizing the importance of the applicant's diligence in prosecution despite the respondent's avoidance of service.
The trial Court's dismissal of a cheque dishonor case due to non-prosecution was erroneous as it failed to appreciate the evidence, warranting leave to appeal.
The court may grant leave to appeal against acquittal if procedural delays and the efforts of the applicant to pursue the case are significant.
Leave to appeal granted as trial court dismissed the case without considering the applicant's submitted documents and presence in another court.
The court held that a bona fide absence of counsel can justify reconsideration of a dismissal for want of prosecution, emphasizing the need for proper evaluation of evidence.
The dismissal of a criminal complaint under Section 256 without considering the merits and circumstances of service evasion is improper.
The trial court must consider all evidence before dismissing a case for absence, ensuring the right to a fair trial is upheld.
The court considered the respondent's willingness to appear before the trial court in deciding the petition.
The trial court's failure to properly appreciate evidence warrants reconsideration of the acquittal under Section 138 of the NI Act.
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.