Latest Judgment of Gujarat High court on sec 145(2) of N I Act based on Dashrath Rupsinh judgment. IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 4194 of 2014 With SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4195 of 2014 With SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4196 of 2014 With SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4197 of 2014 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA ================================================================ 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ================================================================ MUKESHBHAI ISHWARBHAI PRAJAPATI....Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR PADMRAJ K JADEJA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA R/SCR.A/4194/2014 CAV JUDGMENT Date : 01/12/2014 18. I am afraid, I am unable to accept such submission because I also need to keep the object with which the judgment has been delivered by the Apex Court. I have already discussed about the object and in that regard I have also quoted para-20 of the judgment. When the Supreme Court says the recording of evidence has commenced as envisaged in Section 145(2) only means that the cross- examination has actually begun. If the complainant is yet to step in the box for the purpose of cross-examination by the accused then those cases according to me are covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court. To put it in other words such type of cases should be transferred. I do appreciate that if I have to consider only the interpretation of the words proceedings have gone to the stage of section 145(2) or beyond then probably the learned counsel appearing for the complainant may be right, but at the same time I should not ignore the first part of para-22 which makes it very clear that the recording of evidence should have actually commenced as envisaged in section 145(2). There is a fine distinction between the term has commenced and have gone to the stage of section 145(2). But for the words the recording of evidence has commenced I would have probably disagreed with the learned Magistrate. 19. I am of the view that the learned Magistrate is right in returning the complaints to the complainant for being filed/refilled before the competent court having jurisdiction to try the offence. 20. In the result all the four applications failand are hereby rejected. R/SCR.A/4194/2014 CAV JUDGMENT (J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) Vahid After the order is pronounced, Mr. Jadeja, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants prays that the interim order earlier granted by this court be continued for a period of four weeks from today to enable his client to challenge this order before the Apex Court. Having regard to the issue involved, the interim order granted earlier shall continue for a further period of four weeks from today.
Posted on: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 19:04:44 +0000