Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.V. PINTO
Jaydeeo Vrujlal Deepani – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complaint filed for cheque bounce (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of cheque transaction (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. applicant's argument for appeal (Para 5 , 7) |
| 4. respondent's argument against appeal (Para 6) |
| 5. court's view on applicant's absence (Para 8) |
| 6. court's emphasis on timely justice (Para 9) |
| 7. court's reasoning for dismissal (Para 10 , 11) |
| 8. application seeking leave to appeal (Para 12) |
ORDER :
1.1 The respondent No 2 is hereinafter referred to as “the accused” as he stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.
2.1 The applicant is a partner of Rajendra Industries and engaged in the business of trading and manufacturing of moulded plastic articles and plastic products, and the accused is the distributor/wholesale dealer of the goods of the firm of the applicant. The accused had ordered goods which were sent by bills dated 23.12.2021, 27.12.2021, 19.01.2022 and 21.01.2022. As per the accounts an amount of 22,348/- was outstanding towards which the accused gave cheque No. 000050 dated 15.02.2023 of his account with The Ahmedabad District Co-operative Bank Limited, Dhandhuka Branch, Dhandhuka which was deposited by the applicant in his account, with
The court upheld the dismissal of a complaint for want of prosecution due to the complainant's repeated absences, emphasizing the need for timely justice and the prosecution's duty to appear.
Protracted delay in complaints under Section 138 of the N.I. Act constitutes abuse of process, violating the right to a speedy trial.
The court emphasized that cases should be decided on merits rather than technicalities, restoring the complaint for fresh adjudication after the trial Court's dismissal for non-appearance.
The dismissal of a complaint under Section 256 for non-appearance is improper if evidence is recorded, emphasizing the need for trial on merits to avoid undue acquittal.
The court emphasized that acquittal under Section 256 of the Code should not occur solely due to the complainant's absence when evidence is on record, highlighting the need for judicial discretion.
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 court emphasized that a dismissal under Section 256 requires full consideration of all evidence on record, and failure to do so justifies allowing an appeal.
Point of Law : Learned Court below committed no error or mistake while holding that there was no satisfactory explanation in condoning the delay of 350 days in lodging complaint.
Consent of the complainant is necessary for quashing conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, reaffirming its quasi-criminal nature and the court's duty to uphold procedural le....
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
