9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 45X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Learned advocate Mr. Manish Patel waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent No.1 and learned APP Mr. Pandya waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent No.2 - State. 3. This is an application under Section 378(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking leave to challenge the judgment and order dated 28.12.2022 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, N.I. Court No.34, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Case No.3400052 of 2016. By the judgment and order, learned Magistrate has recorded the order of acquittal against the respondent No.1 - original accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 4. The facts emerging from the complaint are that: 4.1 The applicant is in the bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Instruments Act, which came to be registered as Criminal Case No.3400052 of 2016. 4.2 The learned Magistrate after recording the evidence and upon hearing the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, proceeded to record the impugned order of acquittal mainly on the ground that disputed cheque was issued by the opponent No.1 in his personal capacity and the complainant had failed to establish the transaction beyond reasonable doubt as regards the legal enforceable debt existing against the opponent No.1. 5. Mr. Nisarg Jain, learned advocate for the applicant - original complainant has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mainuddin Abdul Sattar Shaikh Vs. Vijay D. Salvi reported in 2015(9) SCC 622 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has invited attention of this Court to the findings and reasons recorded by the trial Court while recording the order of acquittal. He has further submitted that learned Magistrate has rightly recorded upon appreciation of the evidence that the original complainant had miserably failed to establish the fact of existence legally enforceable debt vis-a-vis the opponent namely Ramesh Agraval. He further submitted that no material has been brought on record to indicate that Rameshkumar N. Agraval was the Director of the said Company. He lastly submitted that no link has been established by the original complainant about the existence of legally enforceable debt against Rameshkumar N. Agraval in his individual capacity. He therefore, prayed to n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
