Gujarat High Court
Milankumar Jaydevbhai Megha vs State Of Gujarat on 8 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20833/2023 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL) NO. 20833
of 2023
In F/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 26925 of 2023
==========================================================
MILANKUMAR JAYDEVBHAI MEGHA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
BHARATKUMAR A DESAI(8513) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. ADITYA JADEJA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
YAGNESHKUMAR S JOSHI(8074) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 08/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present application is filed by the applicant - original complainant seeking leave to file an appeal against the judgment and order dated 06-05-2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Modasa (hereinafter referred to as the "learned Trial Court") in Criminal Case No. 1296 of 2022, whereby the learned Trial Court has at the end of the trial, acquitted the respondent No. 2 - original accused from the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NI Act").
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Bharatkumar A Desai appearing for the applicant, learned APP Mr. Aditya Jadeja for the respondent No. 1 - State and learned advocate Mr. Yagneshkumar S. Joshi for the respondent No. 2 - original accused.
Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 04:56:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20833/2023 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined
3. Learned advocate Mr. Bharatkumar A. Desai for the applicant submits that the applicant and the respondent No. 2 were known to each other and were good friends and the applicant had advanced an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- to the respondent No. 2 on 20-12-2021. The respondent No. 2 had issued cheque No. "000058" dated 21-05-2022 for Rs.4,50,000/- from his account with H.D.F.C.Bank, Modasa Branch. The cheque was deposited by the applicant in his account with Bank of Baroda, Sardoi Branch and the cheque returned unpaid with the endorsement "Funds Insufficient". The demand statutory notice was issued to the respondent No. 2, which was duly served to the respondent No.2 but the respondent No. 2 did not reply to the said notice and did not make the payment within the stipulated period and hence, the applicant filed the criminal complaint under Section 138 of the N.I.Act before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Modasa, which came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 1296 of 2022. After the respondent No. 2 was duly served with the summons and his plea was recorded, the applicant had filed his affidavit of examination-in-chief at Exh.4 and filed ten documentary evidence in support of his case. After the further statement of the respondent No. 2 was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the respondent No. 2 did not step into the witness-box and did not examine any witness on his behalf but produced Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 04:56:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20833/2023 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined three documentary evidences in support of his case. After the arguments of the learned advocates for both the parties were heard, the learned trial Court was pleased to pass the impugned judgment and order and acquit the respondent No. 2 from the offence of Section 138 of the N.I.Act. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that respondent No. 2 did not rebut the presumption and the applicant did not put the valid defense but the learned Trial Court without appreciating the evidence in proper perspective, concluded that the applicant did not have the financial capacity to advance the loan of Rs.4,50,000/- to the respondent No. 2. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant was doing the business of the poultry farm and also was in the business of xerox and mobile recharge and he had the financial capacity to advance the amount of Rs.4,50,000/- to the respondent No. 2 but the learned Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in proper perspective and has passed the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has a good case on merits and hence, the applicant seeking leave to appeal must be granted.
4. Learned APP Mr. Aditya Jadeja for the respondent No. 1- State and learned advocate Mr. Yagneskumar S. Joshi for the respondent No. 2 have jointly submitted that learned trial Court has appreciated all the evidence in proper perspective and has passed the impugned judgment Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 04:56:58 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20833/2023 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2025 undefined and order and hence the application may 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 Mon Sep 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 09 04:56:58 IST 2025