Gujarat High Court High Court

Rajesh vs State on 26 June, 2008

Gujarat High Court
Rajesh vs State on 26 June, 2008
Author: H.N.Devani,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/8162/2008	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 8162 of 2008
 

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


 

RAJESH
GULATI S/O SURAJBHAN GULATI - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
JR DAVE for Applicant(s) : 1, 
PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1, 
None for Respondent(s) :
2, 
=========================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 26/06/2008 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

1. Heard
Mr. J.R. Dave, learned advocate for the applicant.

2. It
is submitted that a perusal of the averments made in the complaint
shows that there is no averment to the effect that the applicant was
in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its
day-to-day business as required under section 141 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act. Attention is also drawn to the statement on oath
made by the complainant before the Magistrate, to point out that the
same is not properly made and that on the facts stated therein, no
offence can be said to be constituted insofar as the applicant is
concerned. Reliance is placed upon a decision of this Court in the
case of Dr. Rajan Sanatkumar Joshi v. Rajnikant Govindlal Shah
and
another, 2007(1) GLH 653, wherein this Court has held
that verification of a complaint is not an empty formality but the
same should be in a proper manner i.e. all the facts necessary to
constitute the offence must be borne out from the verification and
the factual aspect should also be made very amply clear by the
complainant.

3. Considering
the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the applicant,
issue Notice returnable on 30th July, 2008. By way of ad interim
relief, further proceedings of the complaint being Criminal Complaint
No.11268 of 2006 pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate,
Court No.22, Ahmedabad, are hereby stayed.

4. Mrs.

M.L. Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of
notice on behalf of respondent No.1 ? State of Gujarat.

Direct
service is permitted qua respondent No.2.

(HARSHA DEVANI, J.)

shekhar/-

   

Top