Gujarat High Court
Anopsinh Dayaji Jadeja vs State Of Gujarat on 20 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7404/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 7404 of 2025
(FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL)
In
F/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 8387 of 2025
==============================================================
ANOPSINH DAYAJI JADEJA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==============================================================
Appearance:
MR MEET D PANSURIA(10170) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==============================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 20/06/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present application is filed by the applicant seeking leave to file an appeal against the judgement and order dated 11.11.2024 passed by the learned 7th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar in Criminal Case No. 1373 of 2020, whereby, the respondent No. 2 came to be acquitted from offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "N.I.Act").
2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Meet Pansuria for the applicant and learned APP Mr.Pranav Dhagat for the respondent No.1 - State.
Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Jun 23 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 23:22:43 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7404/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025 undefined
3. Learned advocate Mr.Meet Pansuria for the applicant submits that the applicant and the respondent No.2 were known to each other and had business transactions. The applicant had advanced an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to the respondent No.2, and when the amount was demanded, the respondent No.2 had issued cheque No.014431 dated 22.11.2019 for the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from his account with Axis Bank, Digvijay Plot, Jamnagar Branch. The cheque was deposited by the applicant in his account, but the cheque was returned unpaid with the endorsement "Alteration Require Drawers Authentication". When the applicant informed the respondent No.2 regarding the return of the cheque, the respondent No.2 authenticate the cheque and affixed his signature at the place of alteration and assured the applicant to present the cheque after one month. Accordingly, the applicant deposited the cheque after one month, but the said cheque returned unpaid with the endorsement "Funds Insufficient". The demand statutory notice was given, which was duly served to the respondent No.2, but the amount was not paid within the stipulated time, and hence, the applicant had filed the complaint under Section 138 of N.I.Act before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar, Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Jun 23 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 23:22:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7404/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025 undefined which came to be registered as Criminal Case No.1373 of 2020. After the respondent No.2 was duly served with the summons, his plea was recorded. The evidence of the applicant was taken on record. In the further statement, the respondent No.2 came up with a case that in all, an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was taken from the applicant and he had repaid the same. The respondent No.2 stepped into the witness box but he did not examine any other witnesses and the defence of the respondent No.2 was that after the cheque had returned unpaid, his wife had given another cheque of Rs.4,00,000/- to the son of the applicant but to prove the case, his wife or his son did not step into the witness box. The respondent No.2 produced 14 documentary evidences and after the arguments of the learned advocates for the respective parties were heard, the learned Trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order, was pleased to acquit the respondent No.2 for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the evidence of the respondent No.2 is contradictory and there is no plausible defence raised by the respondent No.2. The learned Trial Court has misappreciated the evidence and relied upon the contradictory evidence. Learned Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Jun 23 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 23:22:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7404/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025 undefined advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has a good case on merits and has urged that the application for leave to appeal may be granted.
5. Learned APP Mr. Pranav Dhagat for the respondent - State has submitted that the learned Trial Court has appreciated all the documents in proper perspective and no interference of this Court is required, and hence, the application for leave to appeal may be dismissed.
6. Considering the submissions of learned advocates for the respective parties and on perusal of the paper book, prima- facie, it appears that the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the documents available on record in proper perspective and hence, the present application requires consideration. The application for leave to appeal is granted and disposed off accordingly.
(S. V. PINTO,J) F.S. KAZI Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Mon Jun 23 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 23:22:43 IST 2025