- (1.)Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent No.1 - State.
(2.)This is an application seeking leave to appeal filed under Sec. 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dtd. 30/8/2022 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vapi, in Criminal Case No.3771 of 2015. By the said judgment and order, the learned Magistrate has recorded the order of acquittal of respondent Nos.2 and 3- original accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
(3.)Heard Mr. Shubham Jhajharia, learned advocate for the applicant. He has invited attention of this Court to the reasons recorded by the trial Court. He submitted that on the sole ground of non-joinder of Company as accused in the complaint, the complaint filed by the present applicant came to be rejected. He has invited attention of this Court to Sec. 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant had made specific averments in the complaint and has also deposed before the Court that the present respondent Nos.2 and 3 were the In- charge as Directors of the Company. He further submitted that the accused have not disputed the signature on the disputed cheque. In such circumstances, the Directors being In-charge of the affairs of the Company being necessary and proper parties were already on record on behalf of the Company. He further invited attention of this Court to the explanation provided under Sec. 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, whereby for the purpose of this Sec. , the term "Company" has been explained as any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals and under Clause (b) the term "Director" is explained as "Director", in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm. He therefore, submitted that the trial Court committed grave error in recording the order of acquittal.