Gujarat High Court
Dilipkumar Farsuram Khakharia vs State Of Gujarat on 23 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1446/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL) NO. 1446 of
2025
In F/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1852 of 2025
==========================================================
DILIPKUMAR FARSURAM KHAKHARIA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. JAY M THAKKAR(6677) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. HARDIK V VORA(7123) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
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 14.11.2024 passed by the Court of 10th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as the learned trial Court) acquitting the respondent - No. 2 in Criminal Case No. 21494 of 2019 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. Jay M. Thakkar for the applicant, learned advocate Mr. Hardik V. Vora for the respondent No. 2 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Pranav Dhagat for the respondent No. 1
- State. Perused the order passed by the learned trial Court as well as the Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Jun 25 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 25 22:00:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/1446/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025 undefined paper book submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Jay M. Thakkar for the applicant submits that the applicant is the proprietor of the Jattan Agro Fertilizers and is engaged in the business of manufacturing of organic fertilizers and the respondent No. 2 was engaged in retail business of fertilizers. The respondent No. 2 was purchasing materials from the applicant and a ledger account of the respondent No. 2 was maintained by the applicant. As per account statement, an amount of Rs.22,25,625/- was outstanding, towards which, the respondent No. 2 issued cheque No. "311099" dated 15.04.2019 for Rs.22,25,625/- from his account with The Mahesana Urban Co.Op.Bank Ltd., Kacheri Road, Deesa Branch . The applicant deposited the said cheque in his account with State Bank of India, Sushan Circle Branch, Vadodara 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, however, the respondent No. 2 did not repay the amount within the stipulated time and hence the criminal complaint was filed under Section 138 of the NI Act, which was registered as Criminal Case No. 21494 of 2019 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara. After the summons were duly served to the respondent No. 2, the plea of the respondent No. 2 was recorded and the applicant produced oral and documentary evidences in support of Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Jun 25 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 25 22:00:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/1446/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025 undefined his case, wherein, the applicant also produced the account statement at Exh.6 and all the invoices, by which, the goods were purchased from the applicant Exhs. 32 to 61. The main defense of the respondent No. 2 was that the cheque was taken from some other person. After the evidence of the applicant was concluded and further statement of the respondent No. 2 was recorded, the respondent No. 2 did not step into the witness box and did not examine any witness on his behalf, but produced three documentary evidence to support of his case. The learned trial Court has considered the evidence on record and heard the arguments of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, and by the impugned judgment and order, was pleased to acquit the respondent No. 2 from the offence of Section 138 of the N.I.Act.
3.1 Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant had by the documentary and oral evidences proved that the business transaction have taken place between the parties and the amount of Rs.22,25,625/- was the legally enforceable due amount towards which the cheque in question was issued but the learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. The applicant has a good case on merits and hence the application seeking leave to appeal must be granted.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Pranav Dhagat Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Wed Jun 25 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 25 22:00:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/1446/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025 undefined appearing for the respondent-State and learned advocate Mr. Hardik V Vora, for the respondent No. 2 have jointly submitted that learned trial Court has considered all the documentary evidences in proper perspective and has passed the impugned order 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 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 Wed Jun 25 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jun 25 22:00:58 IST 2025