Affirming the discretionary power to grant leave to appeal in Section 138 NI Act cases where technical non-appearance and misappreciation of documents by the trial court defeat substantive justice—persuasive authority for High Courts on leave-granting jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CR.MA/7500/2025 of M/S. NILKANTH CONCAST PRIVATE LIMITE THRO POA JAGDISHCHANDRA PRABHUDAN GADHVI Vs STATE OF GUJARAT |
| CNR | GJHC240265842025 |
| Decision Date | 18-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Application seeking leave to appeal granted (ALLOWED/GRANTED at admission stage) |
| Judgment Author | Honourable Ms. Justice S.V. Pinto |
| Court | High Court of Gujarat |
| Bench | Single-Judge Bench |
| Ratio Decidendi |
In NI Act prosecutions dismissed under Section 256(3) CrPC, the High Court—exercising its supervisory jurisdiction—may grant leave to appeal if there is prima facie misappreciation of oral or documentary evidence and the complainant’s absence is reasonably excused (e.g., due to medical reasons). This ensures that technical defaults do not bar substantive justice and that dismissal for non-prosecution is not used to defeat bona fide claims. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The applicant sold MI55 Roll material worth Rs. 23,88,090 to the respondent, who issued six cheques of Rs. 100,000 each against an outstanding amount of Rs. 9,99,762. All cheques were returned dishonoured with “Payment Stopped by Drawer.” After notice, the applicant filed a Section 138 NI Act complaint (CC No. 2570/2019), led oral evidence and exhibited documents. During trial the applicant missed two hearings due to a fracture; the trial court then dismissed the complaint for non-prosecution under Section 256(3) CrPC and acquitted the respondent. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- High Courts can grant leave to appeal under their supervisory jurisdiction where the trial court dismisses for non-prosecution despite the complainant’s reasonable excuse for absence.
- Misappreciation of on-record documentary or oral evidence by the trial court justifies interference at the leave stage.
- Medical emergencies (e.g., a fracture) may be recognized as valid grounds for excused non-appearance.
- This order serves as persuasive authority for challenging dismissals for non-prosecution in NI Act matters.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court examined the rojkaam and found that the trial court had not appreciated the applicant’s evidence “in proper perspective.”
- Noted that the applicant and his advocate were present on most dates; absences were due to a documented medical fracture.
- Concluded there was prima facie merit to interfere: technical non-appearance and misappreciation warranted a leave to appeal.
- Exercised supervisory jurisdiction to grant leave, ensuring substantive rights are not defeated by procedural dismissals.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Applicant):
- The applicant and his counsel attended nearly all hearings; absences were attributable to a fracture.
- Oral and documentary evidence had been recorded and exhibited but were ignored by the trial court.
- Dismissal for non-prosecution under Section 256(3) CrPC was unjust; leave to appeal should be granted.
Respondent (State):
- The trial court duly considered the complainant’s absence before passing the acquittal order.
- Nonetheless, court may peruse the rojkaam to reach a just decision.
Factual Background
The applicant supplied MI55 Roll material valued at Rs. 23,88,090 to the respondent, who issued six cheques for Rs. 100,000 each against an outstanding Rs. 9,99,762. All cheques bounced with the endorsement “Payment Stopped by Drawer.” After issuing the statutory notice, the applicant filed a complaint under Section 138 NI Act (CC No. 2570/2019). The trial court recorded the applicant’s examination-in-chief and exhibited documents, but when the applicant missed two hearings due to a fracture, it dismissed the complaint for non-prosecution under Section 256(3) CrPC and acquitted the respondent.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 138 NI Act: Offence and procedure for dishonour of cheques.
- Section 256(3) CrPC: Empowers trial courts to dismiss cases for non-prosecution if the complainant fails to appear.
- The High Court clarified that dismissal under Section 256(3) must account for bona fide reasons for non-appearance and proper appreciation of evidence.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded.