##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION

Modification of Order dtd.

R/CR.RA/279/2015 2 0 / 0 4 / 2 0 2 6 i n R / C R . R A / 2 7 9 / 2 0 1 5 ORDER DATED: 01/05/2026

0.7446259986420346

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION -

NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT) NO. 279 of 2015

[On note for speaking to minutes of order dated 20/04/2026 in

R/CR.RA/279/2015 ]

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

MOHAMAD AKHTAR MOHAMAD AASLAM ANSARI

Versus

STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

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

Appearance:

MR PATHIK M ACHARYA(3520) for the Applicant(s) No. 1

MR SIKANDER SAIYED(3458) for the Respondent(s) No. 2

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1

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

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

Date : 01/05/2026

ORDER

Perused the note for speaking to minutes.

In paragraph no.1 of order dated 20.04.2026 words “but

learned counsel for respondent No.2 has remained absent” be

deleted. Rest of the order shall remain as it is.

Present note for speaking to minutes is disposed of in aforesaid

terms.

Registry is directed to issue fresh writ accordingly.

(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)

ANKIT JANSARI

Page 1 of 1

Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 13:41:32 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION

Present Order is modified vide

R/CR.RA/279/2015 O r d e r d t d . 0 1 / 0 5 / 2 0 2 6 i n ORDER DATED: 20/04/2026

R/CR.RA/279/2015

0.7446259986420346

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION -

NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT) NO. 279 of 2015

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

MOHAMAD AKHTAR MOHAMAD AASLAM ANSARI

Versus

STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

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

Appearance:

MR PATHIK M ACHARYA(3520) for the Applicant(s) No. 1

MR SIKANDER SAIYED(3458) for the Respondent(s) No. 2

MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1

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

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

Date : 20/04/2026

ORAL ORDER

1) Today, when the matter is called out, learned counsel for the

applicant remained present, but learned counsel for respondent

No.2 has remained absent. Even on the earlier date, learned

counsel for respondent No.2 had remained absent. Therefore, it

clearly transpires that the respondent No.2 is not interested in

prosecuting the present matter. Hence, in view of the judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Taj Mohammad Vs.

State of Uttar Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.2421 of 2023,

decided on 11.08.2023, this Court has considered the averments

made in the present revision application as well as the material

placed on record and has proceeded to decide the matter in

absence of the respondent No.2 based on available material on

record.

2) In view of the above facts of the case and at the request of learned

for the applicant and ld. APP, the matter is taken up for final

disposal forthwith.

Page 1 of 3

Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 13:41:32 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION

Present Order is modified vide

R/CR.RA/279/2015 O r d e r d t d . 0 1 / 0 5 / 2 0 2 6 i n ORDER DATED: 20/04/2026

R/CR.RA/279/2015

0.7446259986420346

3) 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 - complainant has prayed for quashing and

setting aside the judgment and order dated 03.06.2015 rendered

by learned City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Criminal

Appeal No.105/2001, whereby learned Sessions Court has been

pleased to reject the appeal of the applicant and uphold the order

of conviction and sentence dated 14.03.2011 passed by learned

Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.6, NI Act, Ahmedabad, in

Criminal Case No.2395/2009.

4) Learned counsel for the applicant Mr. Acharya, has submitted that

during the pendency of the present revision application,

respondent No. 2 has expired. He has f