Gujarat High Court
Taslim Murtuja Bagvala vs State Of Gujarat on 21 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3402/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL) NO. 3402 of
2025
In F/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 6143 of 2025
==========================================================
TASLIM MURTUJA BAGVALA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. MAULIK M SONI(7249) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS. JIRGA JHAVERI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 21/04/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present application is filed by the applicant - original complainant under Section 419(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "BNSS"), seeking leave to file an appeal against the order dated 10.01.2025 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Halol at Panchmahal (hereinafter referred to as the "learned Trial Court") in Criminal Case No. 806 of 2024, whereby the learned Trial Court has acquitted respondent No. 2 of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the "NI Act").
Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:04:45 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3402/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2025 undefined
2. Heard learned advocate Ms. Jesal Maiwala for learned advocate Mr. Maulik Soni for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the respondent - State. Though served, the respondent No. 2 has neither appeared in person nor through an advocate. Perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant and the respondent No. 2 were known to each other. On 05.01.2023, the respondent No. 2 had taken a hand loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the applicant for a period of one year. Upon completion of the said period, the applicant demanded repayment, whereupon the respondent No. 2 issued two cheques - bearing Nos. " 031068" and "031069", both dated 23.02.2024 - for Rs.1,50,000/- each, drawn on his account with Bank of Maharashtra, Halol Branch. The applicant deposited cheque No. "031068" in his account with Shree Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd., Halol Branch; however, the said cheque was returned unpaid with the endorsement "Funds Insufficient." The applicant issued a statutory demand notice, which was duly served upon respondent No. 2. Despite service of the notice, the respondent No. 2 failed to repay the amount within the stipulated Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:04:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3402/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2025 undefined time, and hence, the applicant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Halol, which came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 806 of 2024. 3.1 The respondent No. 2 was duly served and appeared before the learned Trial Court. The plea of the respondent No. 2 was recorded, and the applicant stepped into the witness box and deposed on oath and oral and documentary evidences were produced on record. The respondent No. 2 merely denied the offence and took the defence that the amount was given as an investment for the business run jointly by him and the applicant, in which the applicant had a share in the profits, and the cheques in question were issued only as security and were misused by the applicant. However, the respondent No. 2 did not produce any oral or documentary evidence in support of his defence. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence, passed the impugned judgment and order acquitting respondent No. 2 of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that, upon perusal of the entire cross-examination of the applicant, the presumption under Section 138 of the NI Act was not rebutted by respondent Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:04:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3402/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2025 undefined No. 2, and the applicant's financial capacity was never challenged. Hence, the judgment and order of acquittal is bad in law.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the respondent - State has submitted that the learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence in its proper perspective, and therefore, the present application seeking leave to appeal deserves to be rejected.
5. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the applicant and upon perusal of the papers produced on record, it prima facie appears that the oral and documentary evidence produced by the applicant has not been appreciated by the learned Trial Court in its proper perspective. Hence, the present application seeking leave to appeal requires consideration. Accordingly, leave to appeal is granted.
(S. V. PINTO,J) VVM Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 22 22:04:45 IST 2025