Sahil Jintedrakumar Barot vs State Of Gujarat
2024 Latest Caselaw 1528 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Sahil Jintedrakumar Barot vs State Of Gujarat on 19 February, 2024

                                                                                      NEUTRAL CITATION




   R/CR.MA/3291/2024                                    ORDER DATED: 19/02/2024

                                                                                      undefined




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL) NO. 3291 of
                            2024

                  In R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 410 of 2024

                                     With
                       R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 410 of 2024
==========================================================
                         SAHIL JINTEDRAKUMAR BAROT
                                    Versus
                          STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRATIK B BAROT(3711) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS MONALI BHATT, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER

                                Date : 19/02/2024

                        ORAL ORDER

ORDER IN R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL) NO. 3291 of 2024

1. Learned Advocate Mr. P. B. Barot states that

judgment and order of the acquittal was passed by

the Learned Trial Court on three grounds: the first is

that, there was a different handwriting in the

disputed cheque by a different pen; second is that a

security cheque which was lying with the

complainant was missing; and third is that the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/3291/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/02/2024

undefined

complainant fails to prove his financial capacity to

lend the amount.

2. Learned Advocate Mr.Barot has drawn the attention

of this Court with regard to impugned judgment

wherein the case of the complainant from the

beginning is that, the accused came for borrowing

the amount from the father of the complainant and

his father requested the complainant to lend the

amount to the accused, hence on the request of the

father, an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-(Rupees Five

Lakh Only) was lent to the accused against which a

post dated cheque was issued by the accused.

Learned Advocate Mr.Barot has also drawn the

attention of this Court with regard to the cross

examination of the complainant, wherein it

transpired that on the death of the father, a

complaint came to be filed by the complainant as

some part of the amount was lent by the

complainant also.

3. Learned Advocate Mr.Barot submits that as the post

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/3291/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/02/2024

undefined

dated cheque was issued making the signature by

the accused, the remaining column was filled up by

the complainant and therefore, there was a different

pen and handwriting in the disputed cheque.

4. Learned Advocate Mr.Barot also submits that though

the issuance of the cheque as well as the signature

on the cheques were not denied, neither the demand

notice was replied or complied, the Learned Trial

Court shifted the onus to prove the financial capacity

to lend the amount on the complainant without

having rebutted the presumption provided under

sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments

Act, 1886. Learned Advocate Mr.Barot submits that

while acquitting to the respondent accused, minor

discrepancies were given more weightage and

therefore the impugned judgment and order of

acquittal requires to be interfered with.

5. In view of the above submission, this court deems it

fit to allow this application for seeking leave to

prefer an appeal.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/3291/2024 ORDER DATED: 19/02/2024

undefined

ORDER IN R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 410 of 2024

1. The appeal is admitted. Learned APP waives service

of notice of admission on behalf of respondent-State.

2. Issue Bailable Warrant in the sum of Rs.5,000/-

(Rupees Five Thousand Only) against the

respondent-original accused.

3. Record and Proceedings shall be called for. Matter

be listed in seriatim.

(M. K. THAKKER,J) NIVYA A. NAIR