JITENDRABHAI NARANBHAI LODHARI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Digant Kakkad, learned advocate for the applicant and Ms. Nilam Chauhan, learned advocate for respondent no.2-original accused and learned APP Mr. Hardik Mehta who has appeared on behalf of respondent- State. Mr. Digant Kakkad has placed on record the certified copies of the relevant documents forming part of the record of the Trial Court. The same is permitted to be taken upon record.

(2.) This application is filed under Sec. 378(4) of Cr.P.C. seeking leave to appeal against the judgement and order dtd. 3/2/2021 passed by the learned 3 rd Judicial Magistrate First Class, Porbandar in Criminal Case No. 2236 of 2017. By the said judgement and order, the learned Magistrate has proceeded to record the acquittal of present respondent no.2-original accused for the offence alleged under Sec. 138 of NI Act.

(3.) Learned advocate for the applicant has invited attention of this Court to the reasons assigned by the learned Magistrate while recording the impugned order of acquittal. He has submitted that the learned Magistrate has committed gross error in not appreciating the fact that the original transaction which had taken place between the parties, which is evident from the vouchers which has come on record vide Exhibit- 41 to 43 goes to indicate that the transaction had taken place with "B.A.C. Foods". He has submitted that on bare reading of the aforesaid documents one would carry an impression that the said firm was legal entity being proprietorship concern. He invited attention of this Court to the word "Pro" appearing below the title of "B.A.C. Foods" in the aforesaid documents. He had further invited attention of this Court to the disputed cheque, which is signed by the person authorised on behalf of "for B.A.C. Foods". With such documents, the complainant had bona fidely believed that the respondent-accused is a proprietorship concern. He, therefore, submitted that the learned Magistrate ought to have entertained the complaint as the respondent firm which is a proprietorship concern was represented by the authorised person.