Gujarat High Court
Amrutlal Punjalal Panchal vs State Of Gujarat on 9 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/46/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 46 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
================================================================
AMRUTLAL PUNJALAL PANCHAL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MS HASTEE DOSHI, APP ADVOCATE for MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the
Appellant(s) No. 1
MR SP MAJMUDAR(3456) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS CM SHAH, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 09/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Though served, the respondent no. 2- original accused has not appeared either in person or through an advocate to make submissions on his behalf.
2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant - original complainant under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') against the Page 1 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 21:32:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/46/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined judgment and the order dated 30.06.2010 in Criminal Appeal No.13 of 2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, F.T. Court No.4, Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Appellate Court'), whereby, the learned Appellate Court has quashed and set aside the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vadodara, (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Trial Court), in Criminal Case No. 601 of 2004 on 12.01.2009, whereby, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) and in default, simple imprisonment for 30 days for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the N.I.Act').
2.1. The parties are hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant and the accused' as they stood in the original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.
3. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under:
Page 2 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 21:32:36 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/46/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined 3.1. The complainant and the accused were friends and were known to each other and between June, 2001 to April 2002, the accused had taken an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- as advance hand loan from the complainant. When the complainant demanded for the amount, the accused gave cheque No.065826 for Rs.65,000/-
dated 20.11.2003 and cheque No.6065827 for Rs.60,000/- dated 15.11.2003 from his account with "Sri Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd." The cheques were deposited by the applicant in his account, but both the cheques returned unpaid with the endorsement 'funds insufficient'. The demand statutory notice was given, which was duly served to the accused, but the accused did not pay up the amount within the stipulated period, and hence, the complainant filed a complaint before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, at Vadodara, which came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 601 of 2004.
3.2. The learned Trial Court took conginzance of the offence and the accused was duly served with the summons and appeared before the learned Trial Court and the plea of the accused was recorded at Exh. 4, wherein, the accused denied all Page 3 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 21:32:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/46/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined the contents of the complaint and the entire evidence of the complainant was taken on record. The complainant examined 5 witnesses and produced 8 documentary evidences in support of the case.
3.3. After the closing pursis was field by the learned advocate for the complainant at Exh.37, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code was recorded wherein the accused denied the evidence on record. After hearing the arguments of the learned advocates for both the parties, the learned Trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order dated 12.01.2009, was pleased to convict and sentence the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) and in default, simple imprisonment for 30 days for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act.
3.4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.13 of 2009 before the Sessions Court, Vadodara, whereby, the appeal came to be allowed and the Page 4 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 21:32:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/46/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, F.T. Court No.4, Vadodara quashed and set aside the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vadodara in Criminal Case No. 601 of 2004 on 12.01.2009 .
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned First Appellate Court, the appellant - original complainant has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order passed by the Appellate Court is ex-facie, illegal, arbitrary and without properly appreciating the facts of the case and the materials available on record. The Appellate Court has committed jurisdictional error while passing the impugned order. The Appellate Court ought to have appreciated that the learned Trial Court had given proper and cogent reasons and had discussed the evidence in details while convicting the respondent no.2. The Appellate Court ought to have appreciated that the learned Trial Court has clearly observed that respondent no.2 was not able to discharge his initial burden of rebutting the presumption under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and ought to have appreciated that the Page 5 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 21:32:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/46/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined learned Trial Court has held that the respondent no. 2 has not produced any books of accounts to show that the amount of cheques was paid to the appellant. The Appellate Court has completely discarded the evidence produced by the appellant, which was conclusive to prove that the respondent no. 2 had committed the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. The Appellate Court ought to have appreciated that the witnesses that were examined by the respondent no.2 were all interested witnesses and their evidence was not reliable and from their evidence, the defence of the respondent no. 2 was not proved, and therefore, the order of acquittal passed by the learned Appellate Court requires to be quashed and set aside.
5. Heard learned advocate Ms. Hastee Doshi for learned advocate P.P.Majmudar for the appellant - original complainant and learned APP Ms. C.M.Shah for the respondent - State. Perused the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Appellate Court as well as judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court and have re-appreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case. Though Page 6 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 21:32:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/46/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined served, the respondent no. 2 has not appeared either in person or through an advocate.
5.1. Learned advocate Ms. Hastee Doshi for learned advocate Mr.P.P.Majmudar for the appellant - original respondent has taken this Court through the entire evidence produced on record and has vehemently argued that the Appellate Court has not appreciated the evidence properly and the appellant has produced cogent evidence to prove the case and has successfully proved the case against the accused but the Appellate Court has not considered the same and has acquitted the accused. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Judge is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles of justice. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned Judge is based on inferences, not warranted by facts of the case and also on presumption, not permitted by law. Learned advocate Ms. Hastee Doshi for the appellant has urged this Court to allow the appeal and quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and to the accused guilty for the said offence. 5.2. Learned advocate Ms.C.M.Shah for the respondent - Page 7 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 21:32:36 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/46/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined State has submitted that the learned Appellate Court has appreciated all the evidence in true perspective and has not committed any error in acquitting the accused. Therefore, no interference of this Court is required in the impugned judgment and the order of acquittal passed by the learned Appellate Court and has urged this Court to reject the appeal.
6. To prove the case against the accused, the complainant has filed his affidavit of examination-in-chief at Exh.20 and has deposed the facts of the complaint on oath and during the cross examination has admitted that the accused and himself are teachers and known to each other and were working together for the past 20 years. The complainant has stated that he had given the amount between June, 2001 to April, 2002, and sometimes the accused would borrow Rs.10,000/- and sometimes Rs.20,000/-, but he and he has a rough note regarding the amounts taken by the accused and he would produce it on the next date. As far as the cheque at Exh.22 is concerned, the complainant has admitted that the hand-writings on the cheques are not his and the complainant has also admitted that he knows Kalpeshbhai Soni, who is Page 8 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 21:32:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/46/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined working in the District Panchayat. The complainant has also admitted to a notice being served by the accused to him and Gambhirsinh and the accused had also filed an application against him with the DSP office, which was sent to Vadodara Police Station for investigation. The defence raised by the accused was that a person named Vijaybhai Ramanbhai Rana was running a VC and the accused was paying the amount in the VC and the complainant had withdrawn Rs.30,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.60,000/, which has been denied by the complainant. The defence of the accused was also that the complainant was ofter going to collect the amount from him and he had filed an application with the District Development Officer regarding the mental harassment by the complainant and his statement was recorded by the officer from the District Panchayat. 6.1. The defence raised by the accused is mainly that blank cheques were taken by the complainant and the accused has examined five witnesses on his behalf. Defence Witness-1, Jinabhai Nanabai Chauhan examined at Exh.52 was known to both the complainant and the accused and as they three were working in Page 9 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 21:32:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/46/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined Sarnage Primary School. The witness has stated that the accused had told him that the complainant used to collect money from him whenever their salary was given. Moreover, the witness has stated that due to the mental harassment of the complainant, the accused even though he had two more years of service, he had taken voluntary retirement, and out of the retirement benefits that he received, he had paid an amount of Rs.15,000 to one Kalpeshbhai Soni and the accused was paying money to Vijaybhai Ramanlal Rana, who was running a VC and the complainant had withdrawn Rs.30,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.60,000/- on behalf of the accused. The witness has also stated that the accused had told him that two blank cheques were taken by the complainant and in the cross- examination of the witness, this fact is not challenged. 6.2. Defence Witness-2 Kanubhai Koyabhai Chawda examined at Exh.53 was also a person known to both the complainant and the accused and he has stated that he was present at the time of the transaction and the accused had told the complainant that he does not have amount in his bank, but the complainant had taken the cheques. The witness has also stated Page 10 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 21:32:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/46/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined that the amount was withdrawn by the complainant from the VC run by Vijaybhai and Rs.30,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.60,000/- were withdrawn and in the cross-examination of the witness, this fact has not been challenged.
6.3. Defence Witness-3, Bikhabhai Khursi Parmar examined at Exh.57 was also known to both the accused and the complainant and the witness has stated that it was within his knowledge that the accused had borrowed money from the complainant as he had gone to get the money from the complainant with the accused and the complainant had taken advance cheques from the accused. The witness has stated that the accused had told the complainant that he did not have the amount in the bank, but the cheques were taken. In the cross-examination, the witness has stated that the accused has not given any notice to take the blank cheques back from the complainant. 6.4. Defence Witness No-4, Chotabhai Mathurbhai Bhalia examined at Exh.58 has also stated that the complainant had taken two blank cheques from the accused.
Page 11 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 21:32:36 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/46/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined 6.5. Defence Witness No.-5, Vijaybhai Ramanbhai Rana examined at Exh.59 was also known to the complainant and the accused, but has not supported the defence of the accused that he was running the VC and that the complainant had withdrawn the amount deposited by the accused.
7. One minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the complainant on record, the complainant has filed the case that the accused had taken an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- from him, but the complainant has not produced any evidence to show that the accused had taken the amount on particular dates. In the cross- examination, the complainant has stated that he has a rough note regarding the dates when the amount was taken, but no such note has been produced on record. As far as the defence of the accused is concerned, the accused has stated that blank cheques were taken by the complainant from him and he had paid the amount through the VC run by Vijaybhai Ramanbhai Rana and has examined five witnesses, who have all stated that it was within their knowledge that the blank cheques were taken by the complainant. Moreover, as the complainant is a teacher, he ought to have given the dates Page 12 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 21:32:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/46/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined when the amount was taken and there is no evidence produced on record to show that the amount was, in fact, taken by the accused on particular dates, whereas from the evidence produced by the defence, a plausible defence has been raised that the blank cheques were taken. Moreover, the signatures on the cheques and the other written materials on the cheques are written from a different pen with a different ink and the hand-writings are also different. As the cheques were doubtful, the accused had filed an application at Exh.44 to send the cheques for examination by a Handwriting Expert, but the learned Trial Court had rejected and dismissed that application and the accused had filed Revision Application No.203 of 2007 before the Sessions Court, Vadodara, which was pending for final disposal and during that time, the learned Trial Court had passed the judgment and order of conviction. As there is an admission on behalf of the from the complainant that the handwriting in the cheques were different and considering the deposition of the defence witnesses, the accused has raised a plausible defence, and the complainant could not produce any documentary evidence to show that he had, in fact, given the Page 13 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 21:32:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/46/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined amount to the complainant and has not even mentioned the dates, on which, the amount was taken.
8. In view of the above, the learned Appellate Court has appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and there does not appear to be any infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. The learned Appellate Court has appreciated all the evidence and this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Appellate Court was completely justified in acquitting the accused of the charges leveled against them. The findings recorded by the learned Appellate Court are absolutely just and proper and no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the learned First Appellate Court and this Court is in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the learned Appellate Court. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court and the present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is dismissed.
9. The impugned judgment and the order dated 30.06.2010 in Criminal Appeal No.13 of 2009 passed by the learned Page 14 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 21:32:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/46/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, F.T. Court No.4, Vadodara is hereby confirmed.
10. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the learned First Appellate Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J) F.S.KAZI.....
Page 15 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 21:32:36 IST 2025