SHRI NAKODA ENTERPRISE Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel Mr. A.S. Purohit, Mr. Hardik Dave, who has instructions to appear for and on behalf of the respondent no. 2 and Mrs. Krina Calla, learned APP for the respondent State. Mr. Hardik Dave seeks permission to file Vakalatnama before the Registry, permission sought, is granted.

(2.) With the consent of the learned counsels for the respective parties, matter is taken up for final hearing.

(3.) By way of this application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, read with Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C, the applicants seek to challenge the legality and validity of the impugned orders dtd. 20/8/2022 and 20/10/2022 passed by the Courts below. The applicants are facing the criminal proceedings of Negotiable Instrument Act, before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court at Vapi, Dist.: Valsad, allegedly initiated by the respondent no. 2 complainant. After completion of the evidence of the complainant, the accused herein called upon to enter upon their defense and produce their evidence. The accused No.3, Mohanlal Mali, being a Partner of the Firm, permitted to adduce evidence and he has tendered his affidavit in the form of chief examination. After completion of his evidence, the accused herein moved an application Exh. 56, for summoning authorized person of Punjab National Bank, Gunjan Branch, Valsad along with necessary documents referred in the application and private witness Niraj Mali, who is son of accused no.3 Mohanlal Mali. The learned trial Court by its order dtd. 20/8/2022, declined the prayer made by the accused applicant. Dissatisfied with the order, the applicants herein preferred Criminal Revision Application before the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court by its order dtd. 20/10/2022 rejected the Revision mainly on the ground that, the order passed by the trial Court is interlocutory order.