MAHESHKUMAR NATWARLAL TRIVEDI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. Rule. Mr. M. R. Mengdey, learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 1- State and Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Advocate waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 2. With the consent of the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, the application is taken up for final hearing today.

(2.) BY way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner / applicant - original accused has prayed for an appropriate order to quash and set aside the complaint / Criminal case No. 570 of 2003 pending in the Court of learned J. M. F. C. , Kalol and further quashing and setting aside the order dated 26. 10. 2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar in Criminal Revision Application No. 67 of 2007 as well as the order dated 16. 05. 2007 passed by the learned J. M. F. C. , Kalol below Exh. 58 in Criminal Case No. 570 of 2003.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 2 - original complainant filed Criminal Case No. 570 of 2003 against the petitioner in the Court of JMFC, Kalol for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'n. I. Act') alleging inter-alia that cheque for an amount of Rs. 5 lacs was issued by the petitioner in his favour and when the said cheque was deposited with the Bank same was returned with endorsement 'insufficient funds'. It was further case on behalf of the complainant that thereafter legal notice as contemplated under Section 138 of the N. I. Act was served upon the petitioner and within stipulated time amount under cheque was not paid and therefore, it was alleged that the petitioner has committed offence under Section 138 of the N. I. Act. That the learned JMFC, Kalol issued summons / process upon the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the N. I. Act. That thereafter, during trial and after recording of the evidence of the original complainant, it has come on record that notice was received / served upon the petitioner on 11. 02. 2003 and the complaint was lodged on 01. 04. 2003 i. e. beyond the period of limitation. Therefore, the petitioner submitted application under Section 235 of the Criminal Procedure Code vide Exh. 58 requesting the learned trial Court to acquit the petitioner- accused. Said application came to be dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 16. 05. 2007. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned trial Court below Exh. 58, the petitioner preferred Revision Application No. 67 of 2007 before the learned Revisional Court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment and order dated 26. 10. 2007. Hence, the present petitioner preferred present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.