Gujarat High Court
Vrajeshbhai Naraharibhai Thakkar ... vs Manubhai Chhatrasinh Parmar on 23 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11762/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL) NO. 11762
of 2025
In F/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 22870 of 2025
==========================================================
VRAJESHBHAI NARAHARIBHAI THAKKAR PROPRIETOR OF GOLDEN
FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS
Versus
MANUBHAI CHHATRASINH PARMAR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JOHNSEY P MACWAN(5498) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR.PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 23/06/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present application is filed by the applicant - original complainant seeking leave to appeal against the order dated 19.04.2025 passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anand (hereinafter referred to as the learned trial Court) acquitting the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in Criminal Case No. 4871 of 2018 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. Jhonsey P. Macwan for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Pranav Dhagat for the respondent - State. Though served, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have not appeared either in person or through an advocate. Perused the judgment Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Jun 25 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 25 22:00:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/11762/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025 undefined and order passed by the learned trial Court as well as the paper book submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant is doing business in the name of Golden Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. and the respondents No. 1 and 2 had purchased fertilizers of agriculture from the applicant. The business transactions were going on between the applicant and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and a ledger account was maintained by the applicant, which is produced at Exh.34. At the end of the transaction, an amount of Rs.55,47,000/- was outstanding, towards which, cheque Nos. 000013 and 000014 of Bank of India, Thasra Branch were given by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. . The cheques were deposited by the applicant in his account with Sardarganj Mercantile Co.op.Bank Ltd, Anand Branch, but both the cheques returned unpaid with the endorsement "Refer to Drawer" . The demand statutory notice was given, which was duly served but the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not repay the amount and did no not send reply to the notice and hence, the applicant filed criminal complaint under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anand, which came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 4871 of 2018.
3.1 After the summons were duly served to the respondent Nos. 1 and
Page 2 of 4
Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Jun 25 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 25 22:00:49 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11762/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
2 appeared, they appeared before the learned trial Court and the pleas of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were recorded. The applicant produced oral as well as documentary evidence and also produced the agreement that was executed between the parties at Exh. 35 along with the other documents. The applicant has also produced the registration certificate of his firm and had proved that the amount of Rs.55,47,000/- was the legal enforceable due amount from the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not step into the witness box or lead evidence and after the arguments of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the learned trial Court was pleased to acquit the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act mainly on the ground that the cheques were presented after the lapse of time limit and the amount was barred by the law of limitation. The learned trial Court was also of the opinion that the cheques were not for discharge of any existing liability and the impugned order came to be passed. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not deny the execution of the agreement and from the documentary evidence, the legally enforceable due was proved but the learned trial Court did not appreciate the documents in proper perspective. The applicant has a good case on merits, and hence, the application seeking leave to appeal must be granted.
Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Jun 25 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 25 22:00:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/11762/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025 undefined
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Pranav Dhagat appearing for the respondent-State has submitted that learned trial Court has considered the document in proper perspective and no interference is required in the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court and hence the application seeking leave to appeal must be rejected.
5. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the applicant as also on perusal of the impugned judgment and 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 evidence in proper perspective and hence, the application seeking leave to appeal deserves consideration and the same is allowed.
(S. V. PINTO,J) VVM Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Jun 25 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 25 22:00:49 IST 2025