Ensuring a fair trial by permitting correction of procedural defects, prioritizing justice over strict adherence to flexible enforcement of authorization in commercial disputes.

ORAL ORDER

1. The present application is filed by the applicant – original complainant seeking leave to file an appeal against the order dated 11.01.2024 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Navsari (hereinafter referred to as the “learned Trial Court”) in Criminal Case No. 322 of 2017, whereby, respondent No.1 - original accused came to be acquitted from the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as “N.I.Act”).

2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Jay Thakkar for the applicant and learned APP Mr. Pranav Dhagat for the respondent No.1 – State and learned advocate Raajen D Jadav for the respondent no.2.

3. Learned advocate Mr.Jay Thakkar for the applicant submits that the applicant is the Director of “Khushi Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd.” and was in the business of building materials and the respondent no. 2 has business transactions with the applicant as he was contractor for roads. In October- November, 2015, building material was purchased from the applicant and an amount of Rs.24,50,000/- was outstanding, towards which, cheque No.121767 on 19.11.2016 for the amount of Rs.24,50,000/- from his account with Axis Bank, Navagam, Surat Branch was given to the applicant. The applicant deposited the said cheque in his account with Yes Bank, Navsari Branch, but the cheque returned unpaid with the endorsement “Drawers Signature Differs”. The demand statutory notice was given, which was duly served to the respondent no. 2 but the respondent no. 2 did not give any reply and did not repay the amount within the stipulated time, and hence, the applicant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I.Act before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Navsari, which came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 322 of 2017. After the respondent no. 2 was duly served with the summons, he appeared before the learned Trial Court and after his plea was recorded, the applicant stepped into the witness box and examined three witnesses and produced seven documentary evidence in support of his case. After the closing pursis was filed, the further statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. of the respondent no. 2 was recorded but the respondent no. 2 did not step into the witness box and did not produce any evidence in support of his case. The learned Trial Court, after hearing the arguments of the advocates for the respective parties, was pleased to conclude that the legally enforceable amount was proved and the cheque was issued by the respondent no. 2 but considering the fact that the company “Khushi Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd.” is not joined as party and there was no authorization of the applicant to file the complaint, was pleased to pass the impugned order of acquittal. Learned advocate Mr. Jay Thakkar for the applicant submits that the learned Trial Court has merely relied on procedural defect and irregularities and the case was dismissed mainly on the fact that the authorization of the applicant was not produced on record, but as per the judgment passed in the case of Haryana State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited Vs. Jayam Textiles and Another reported in (2014) 4 SCC 704 , the learned Trial Court ought to have given an opportunity to the applicant to produce the authorization on record. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the defect was a curable defect and opportunity should have been granted to the applicant to cure the defect and hence, application for leave to appeal is required to be granted. Learned advocate further submits that the applicant has a good case on merits and has urged this Court to allow the present application.

4. Learned APP Mr. Pranav Dhagat for the respondent - State and learned advocate Mr.Raajen Jadav for the