IDRISH ISMAIL PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present application u/s.397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant herein original accused has prayed to suspend the sentence imposed by judgment and order dated 06.09.2016 passed by the learned 7th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara in Criminal Case No.41892 of 2012 as well as the judgment and order dated 30.10.2017 passed by the learned 12th Addl. Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Criminal Appeal No.179 of 2016, by which, the applicant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 read of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment with direction to pay the amount of cheque to the complainant.

(2.) Heard learned advocate for the petitioner. He has repeatedly pressing that, as there are seven complaints against the petitioner and thereby judgment of conviction in all seven cases and when out of such seven cases, the Sessions Court has acquitted him in three cases, the conviction confirmed by the Sessions Court in remaining four cases is not correct and, therefore, there should be protection from depositing the amount of cheque.

(3.) However, the fact remains that the Sessions Court has so also the trial Court has discussed all the evidence before it before coming to particular determination and, thereby, in four cases conviction is confirmed. However, acquittal in three cases is based upon facts, circumstances, pleadings and evidence of those cases, which are required to be compared with each other. In absence of such comparison, only because of such statement that petitioner has been acquitted in three cases, it cannot be believed that the petitioner is innocent for remaining four cases also. The statement of the petitioner in his reply to statutory notice so also the discussion by both the courts below specifically confirm that there was business transactions between the parties and that petitioner has issued some cheques towards his liability in favour of the complainant. However, for the cheque under reference, petitioner has contended that he has already filed a complaint regarding loss of cheques but both the courts below have determined that such fact is not correct, since it is not proved.