Gujarat High Court High Court

Chhaturbhuj vs State on 13 May, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Chhaturbhuj vs State on 13 May, 2010
Author: Anant S. Dave,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/4507/2010	 1/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 4507 of 2010
 

With


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 4508 of 2010
 

With


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 4144 of 2010
 

 
=========================================================


 

CHHATURBHUJ
PATIDHAR - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
Appearance : 
MR
ASHISH M DAGLI for
Applicant(s) : 1, 
MR SHIVANG SHUKLA, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
for Respondent(s) : 1 (IN CR.MA NO.4507/2010 & CR.MA
NO.4144/2010) AND MR KARTIK PANDYA, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) : 1 (IN CR.MA NO.4508/2010)   
None for Respondent(s)
: 2, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
		
	

 

Date
: 13/05/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

In
all these cases, the complaints disclose averments about the
applicant being a Director and carrying out business of the Company,
and therefore responsible for the alleged offences under Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881.

Learned
Advocate Mr. Ashish M. Dagli for the applicant submits that the
petitioner was not the Director and in support of the above, Search
Report / Certificate of the Chartered Accountant is produced. The
above fact is to be considered by the Court where proceedings under
the Act are pending and not by this Court. At this stage, no powers
can be exercised. However, it will be open for the applicant to
request the Court for grant of exemption from personal appearance in
accordance with law.

Under
such circumstances, the Court shall consider the issue on merits as
well as on law and decide the said applications as early as
possible.

With
the aforesaid, these applications stands disposed of at this stage.

(Anant
S. Dave, J.)

Caroline

   

Top