VINODKUMAR MANILAL VORA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel Mr. A. B. Gateshaniya, appearing with Mr. Satyen B. Raval, learned advocate for the appellant, was heard in extenso after production of the entire paper-book of the record of the trial Court. The appellant has approached this Court to challenge that part of the order dated 18. 7. 2006 of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Surendranagar, by which original accused Nos. 4 to 8 have been acquitted of the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The trial Court has, in the impugned elaborate judgment, found that those accused persons were not proved to be active and responsible partners of accused No. 1 firm. The appeal was sought to be argued on the basis of the provisions of section 141, emphasizing sub-section (2) thereof, in support of the submission that those accused persons were required to be convicted for the alleged offence.

(2.) LEARNED counsel was repeatedly requested to point out any material or conclusive evidence on record from which it could be inferred that original accused Nos. 4 to 8 were partners of the firm on whose account the cheque in question was issued to the original complainant. A specific defence was taken even before the trial Court and it was contended that partnership deed of the firm was neither called for nor produced to establish that those accused persons were partners in the first place. Even after elaborate reference to the evidence on record, learned counsel could not show any direct or conclusive evidence of original accused Nos. 4 to 8 being partners of the firm at the relevant time. Under the circumstances, the finding of the trial Court that no offence was proved against them beyond reasonable doubt could not be assailed as perverse. No other issue was raised or agitated. Therefore, the appeal is summarily dismissed.