VIJAYBHAI ARJANBHAI TULSANAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE in each of the Revision Applications. Shri K.A. Champaneri, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No.2 ­ original complainant and Ms. C.M. Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No.1 ­ State of Gujarat in each of the Revision Applications. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties and as the facts are undisputed, all the three present Criminal Revision Applications are taken up for final hearing today.

(2.) CRIMINAL Revision Application No.527 of 2012 has been preferred by the applicant herein ­ original accused No.2 challenging the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 23.09.2011 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhavnagar in Criminal Case No.9814 of 2005 convicting the applicant herein ­ original accused No.2 for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "NI Act") for dishonor of the cheque of Rs.10,425/ which was allegedly issued by the original accused No.1 ­ wife of the applicant herein ­ original accused No.2 ­ proprietor of one Vijay Marketing and issued and signed by the original accused No.1 drawn from the bank account maintained by her as well as the impugned judgment and order dated 10.10.2012 passed by the learned Appellate Court ­ learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar in Criminal Appeal No.72 of 2011 by which the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the said Appeal so far as the applicant herein ­ original accused No.2 is concerned.

(3.) SHRI Vishwas Dave, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant herein ­ original accused No.2 has vehemently submitted that both the Courts below have materially erred in convicting the applicant herein ­ original accused No.2 for the offence under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the NI Act for dishonor of cheques which were admittedly issued and signed by the original accused No.1 as proprietor of Vijay Marketing and from the bank account maintained by her. It is submitted that as admittedly the cheques in question were neither signed by the applicant herein ­ original accused No.2 nor they were issued from the bank account maintained by him, both the Courts below have materially erred in convicting the applicant herein ­ original accused No.2 for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act.