STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. TUSHAR SHANTILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both Criminal Appeal No.16 of 1994 by the appellant-State under Sec.378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Criminal Revision Application No.33 of 1994 by the petitioner-original complainant under Section 397 read with Sec.401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure arise out of judgment and order dated 1-10-1993 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.9, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Case No.224 of 1992 whereby respondents-original accused were acquitted of the charges levelled against them.

(2.) The facts in nutshell are that a private complaint was filed in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.9, Ahmedabad, against the respondents Nos.1 to 3-original accused and two others by M/s Cera Leasing Finance and Industries Ltd. which is giving advances to institutions and co-operative and credit societies for purchase of electrical and electronic items for their employees, for the offences punishable under Secs.409, 420, 467, 471 read with Sec.34 and 114 of IPC alleging inter alia that the respondents accused after availing the advances from the complainant in the form of bill of exchange and other negotiable instruments, repaid only credit amount but failed to repay the entire amount. The said complaint was sent for investigation under Sec.156(3) of Cr.P.C. to Navrangpura Police Station. Upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed by the police against the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and one Shantilal M.Kothari, who has now expired and case was numbered as Criminal Case No.2040 of 1992. Upon conclusion of trial, the all the accused were acquitted of the charges levelled against them vide judgment and order dated 1-10-1993 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.9, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Case No.224 of 1992, giving rise to the present appeal by the State and revision by the original complainant.

(3.) Heard learned advocate, Mr.Vijay H.Patel for the original accused, learned APP, Mr.L.R.Pujari for the State and learned advocate, Mr.Nitin M.Amin for the original complainant.