Gujarat High Court
Harshad Ganpatbhai Solanki vs State Of Gujarat on 11 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/17375/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL) NO. 17375
of 2025
In F/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 21459 of 2025
==========================================================
HARSHAD GANPATBHAI SOLANKI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR K B VIRVADIYA(11272) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. NISHIT P GANDHI(6946) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS. CHETNA SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 11/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present application is filed by the applicant - original complainant under Section 419 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as "the BNSS") seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 17-02-2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bharuch hereinafter referred to as the " the learned appellate Court) acquitted the respondent No. 2 in Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 2023 filed by the respondent No. 2 challenging the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned 3rd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharuch ( hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court) in Criminal Case No. 2922 of 2022 for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 12 00:57:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17375/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2025 undefined referred to as 'the NI Act").
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. K.B.Viravadiya appearing for the applicant, learned APP Ms. Chetna Shah for the respondent No. 1 - State.
3. Learned advocate Mr. K.B.Virvadiya for the applicant submits that the applicant and the respondent No. 2 were friends and known to each other and the applicant had advanced an amount of ₹9,00,000/- in parts to the respondent No. 2 in the year 2020. Towards the amount, the respondent No. 2 gave cheque No. "037107" dated 01.01.2022 for ₹9,00,000/- from his account with State Bank of India, Mohammedpura, Baruch Branch The cheque was deposited by the applicant in his account with H.D.F.C. Bank, Link Road, Bharuch branch but the cheque returned unpaid with the endorsement "Funds Insufficient". The demand statutory notice was given towards which, an evasive reply was given by the respondent No. 2 to Jatin Pravinchandra Keshuvala, the Proprietor of Jhanvi Finance but the amount was not paid within the stipulated period and hence the applicant filed the criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharuch, which came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 2966 of 2022. After the respondent No. 2 was duly served with the summons, he appeared before the learned trial Court and his plea was recorded at Exhibit 7 and the applicant submitted his affidavit of Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 12 00:57:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17375/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2025 undefined examination-in-chief at Exhibit 4 and produced seven documentary evidences on record. Learned advocate submits that the respondent No. 2 had also executed a promissory note, which was produced at Exhibit 90 and the applicant had proved that the amount of ₹9,00,000/- was the legally enforceable claim amount due from the respondent No. 2 towards which the cheque in question was given. At the end of the trial, the learned Trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order dated 01.02.2023 was pleased to convict the respondent No. 2 for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 and sentenced the respondent No. 2 to simple imprisonment of one year and fine of ₹10,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for 30 days. The learned trial Court was also pleased to order the respondent No. 2 to pay an amount of ₹9,00,000/- under Section 357 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to the applicant.
3.1 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of conviction, the respondent No. 2 preferred Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 2023 before the Session Court, Bharuch and after the arguments of learned advocates for both the parties were heard, the learned Sessions Judge, Bharuch, by the impugned judgment and order dated 17.02.2025 was pleased to set aside the judgment and order of conviction of the learned Trial Court and acquit the respondent No. 2 from the offence under Section 138 of the Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 12 00:57:01 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17375/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2025 undefined Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has a good case on merits and the applicant had proved beyond reasonable doubts that the cheque in question was given towards the legally enforceable debt, but the learned Sessions Court did not appreciate the evidence in proper perspective.
4. Learned APP Ms. Chetna Shah for the respondent No.2 - State submits that learned Sessions Court has appreciated all the evidence in proper perspective and no interference is required 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 judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bharuch and the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned trial Court, prima-facie, it appears that the same set of evidence have been appreciated by two Courts in a different manner and hence, the issue requires consideration. Consequently, the application seeking leave to appeal is allowed.
(S. V. PINTO,J) VVM Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Sep 12 00:57:01 IST 2025