IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 405 of 2009 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ==========================================================

PRAVIN AMARSINH LODHA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR PRAVIN GONDALIYA(1974) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR HARNISH M PATEL(9978) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR HEMIL S DAVE(9960) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MD MONALI BHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 08/04/2026

JUDGMENT

1. At the outset, it is worth mentioning that, considering the concurrent findings and as this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same, an opportunity was given to the applicant as to whether he was willing to settle the dispute. However, the learned advocate for the applicant, having no instructions or contact with the applicant in this regard, produced a communication on record stating “no instructions from his client.” Since the parties were not ready and willing to settle the dispute, the Court has decided the matter on merits.

2. By way of present revision application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”), the applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside of the judgment and order dated 23.06.2009 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No.88/2009 and also the judgment and order dated 30.03.2009 recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Case No.1078 of 2008.

3. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

4. It is the case of the applicant that The respondent No.2- original complainant, namely Sanjiv Shah, being the Managing Director and authorized representative of Shah Investors Home Ltd., filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, on 29.06.2007, alleging that accused No.1, Amarsinh Lodha, and accused No.2, Pravin Amarsinh Lodha, had commercial transactions with the complainant company in connection with investment in shares and share broking, pursuant to which an amount of Rs.5,25,000/- remained outstanding. It was alleged that accused No.2, being the son of accused No.1, issued three cheques in favour of the complainant, one drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Gita Mandir Road Branch, Ahmedabad, and two drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Bhavna Society Branch, Ahmedabad, aggregating to Rs.5,25,000/-, towards discharge of the liability of accused No.1. The complainant deposited the said cheques with HDFC Bank, Paldi Branch, Ahmedabad, on 30.07.2007 for clearance, however, all the cheques came to be dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account of accused No.2. Consequently, Criminal Case No.2078 of 2008 came to be filed against the accused before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, by judgment and order dated 30.03.2009, convicted the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for four months. Hence, the present application.

5. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the learned Courts below committed an error in convicting the present applicant, as the complainant failed to prove the existence of any legally enforceable debt. It was submitted that the cheques were given as security for running the office and obtaining a franchise from the complainant, and that no transaction had taken place between the accused and the complainant. The cheques were issued as security and not towards discharge of