HARISHKUMAR HIRALAL TAPIYAWALA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 19.3.2001 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 57213 of 1998, whereby the accused has been acquitted from the charges leveled against him.

(2.) THE brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:

(3.) IT was contended by learned Counsel Mr. Nitin Dave appearing on behalf of Mr. A.M. Parekh learned Counsel for the appellant that the judgment and order of the trial Court is against the provisions of law; the trial Court has not properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and looking to the provisions of law itself it is established that the prosecution has proved the whole ingredients of the evidence against the present respondent. Learned Counsel has also taken this Court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence. He has also contended that the order of the trial Court is also contrary to the record and has not considered the provisions under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. It is also clear from the evidence on record that the accused had committed offence under Section 138 of the Act, but the learned Judge has not considered in true perspective. Therefore, the order is required to be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice. At the outset it is required to be noted that the principles which would govern and regulate the hearing of appeal by this Court against an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court have been very succinctly explained by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. In the case of M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani v. State of Kerala and Anr, 2006 6 SCC 39, the Apex Court has narrated about the powers of the High Court in appeal against the order of acquittal. In para 54 of the decision, the Apex Court has observed as under: