Gujarat High Court
Manishbhai Jagdishchandra Shethwala ... vs State Of Gujarat on 11 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1769/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL) NO. 1769 of
2025
In F/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 49490 of 2024
==========================================================
MANISHBHAI JAGDISHCHANDRA SHETHWALA LH OF ASHABEN
JAGDISHCHANDRA SHETHVALA & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR. PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 11/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present application is filed by the applicant - original complainant seeking leave to appeal against the order dated 05.10.2024 passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat (hereinafter referred to as the learned trial Court) acquitting the respondent - No. 2 in Criminal Case No. 5714 of 2011 filed by the applicant for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. (hereinafter referred to as the NI Act).
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. P.P.Majmudar for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Pranav Dhagat for the respondent - State. Perused the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court as well as the paper book submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant.
Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:59:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/1769/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined
3. Learned advocate Mr. P.P.Majmudar appearing for the applicant submits that the respondent No. 2 was in need of some finance and the applicant had advanced some amount to the respondent No. 2 and when the amount was demanded, the respondent No. 2 gave cheque No. "391528" dated 14.12.2010 for Rs.17,50,000/- from his account with The Surat National Cooperative Bank Ltd., Karwa Road, Navapura, Surat Banch. The said cheque was deposited by the applicant in his account with The Surat Mercantile Co.Op.Bankt Ltd, Anandmahal Road Branch, Surat but the cheque returned unpaid with the endorsement "Funds Insufficient and Signature Differs". The demand statutory notice was given, which was duly served to the respondent No. 2 but the respondent No. 2 gave an evasive reply, wherein, he acknowledge the financial transaction between the parties but did not make any payment within the stipulated period and hence, the applicant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat, which came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 5714 of 2011. After the summons were duly served, the respondent No. 2 appeared and his plea was recorded and the applicant produced oral and documentary evidence in support of his case. The applicant step into the witness box and produced documentary evidence in support of his case. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that if the reply to the notice sent by Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:59:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/1769/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined the respondent No. 2 is perused, it clearly admits that the financial transaction had taken place between the parties and there was no explanation regarding thecheque that was given to the applicant. Moreover, during the cross examination, the presumption was not rebutted by the responedent No. 2. Learned advocate further submits that the applicant produced his Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16, which clearly show that the outstanding amount of Rs.24,50,000/- was due from the respondent No. 2. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the documentary evidence clearly proves that the legally enforceable debt amount was due to the applicant but the learned trial Court did not appreciate the documentary evidence in proper perspective and has passed the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and hence, the application seeking leave to appeal must be granted.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Pranav Dhagat appearing for the respondent No. 1 - State has submitted that learned trial Court has considered all the oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective and no interference is required in the impugned order and hence the application seeking leave to appeal must be rejected.
5. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:59:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/1769/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined the applicant as also on perusal of the impugned order and the paper book submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant, prima-facie, it appears that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the documents in proper perspective and hence, the application seeking leave to appeal deserves consideration and the same is granted.
(S. V. PINTO,J) VVM Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:59:10 IST 2025