Gujarat High Court
Vishal Electronics Thro Patel ... vs State Of Gujarat on 4 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4518/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL)
NO. 4518 of 2025
In
F/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 30693 of 2024
=============================================
VISHAL ELECTRONICS THRO PATEL ASHOKBHAI AMBALAL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR. YASH MOHTA, ADVOCATE for SINGHANIA & CO. LLP(13090)
for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS DHWANI TRIPATHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 04/04/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of the present application, the applicant has
prayed to grant leave to appeal against the judgment and order
dated 20.04.2024 passed by the learned Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, N.I.Act Court No.33, Ahmedabad
(hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Criminal
Case No. 70120 of 2020.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Yash Mohta for the applicant
submits that the applicant was doing business of electrical goods
in the name and style of "Vishal Electricals" and the respondent
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4518/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
No.2 was an employee of the applicant, and thereafter, the
respondent No.2 had started his own business in the name and
style of "Shivshakti Electricals". The respondent No.2 used to take
electronic items from the applicant and number of items were
purchased towards which bills were issued. An amount of
Rs.2,47,881/- was outstanding, towards which, the respondent
No.2 issued cheque No.000008 dated 15.07.2020 for an amount of
Rs.44.804/- and another cheque No.0000007 dated 20.07.2020 for
an amount of Rs.2,03,077/- from his account with Kotak Mahindra
Bank, G.R.Sterling Center Branch. Both the cheques were
deposited by the applicant in his account with Bank of Baroda,
Panch Kuva Branch but the said cheques returned unpaid with the
endorsement "Funds Insufficient". The demand statutory notice
was given, which was duly served to the respondent No.2 and the
amount was not paid and hence, the applicant had filed the
complaint under Section 138 of the N.I.Act before the Court of
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, which culminated
into Criminal Case No. 70120 of 2020. After the respondent No.2
was served with the summons and he appeared, the applicant
produced all the documentary evidence including the account
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4518/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
statement and the tax invoice bills and proved that electronics
items were taken by the respondent No.2 but the learned Trial
Court has concluded that the account statement produced at
Exh.25 was not proved. Learned advocate submits that the tax
invoices produced at Exhs.26 to 43, all bear signature of the
respondent No.2 and the document produced at Exh.25 reflect the
same tax invoices. The documents where the signature of the
respondent No.2 prove that the electronic goods were purchased
by the respondent No.2 as he had personally come to collect the
same but the learned Trial Court concluded that as there were no
transport details, the bills were not proved. Learned advocate for
the applicant submits that the learned Trial Court has not
appreciated the documentary evidence in proper perspective and
has passed the impugned judgment and order. The applicant has a
good case on merits, and therefore, the present leave to appeal
may be allowed.
4. Learned APP Ms. Dhwani Tripathi for the respondent
- State submits that the learned Trial Court has appreciated all the
documents in proper perspective, and therefore, no interference of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4518/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/04/2025
undefined
this Court is required in the impugned judgment and order of
acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court and the present
application may be rejected.
5. Having heard advocates for the respective parties and
on perusal of the paper book produced by the applicant, prima-
facie, it appears that the electrical goods were taken by the
respondent No.2 and all the invoices bear signature of the
respondent No.2 but the learned Trial Court has not appreciated
the same in proper perspective, and hence, the present application
requires consideration and accordingly, is allowed.
(S. V. PINTO,J)
F.S.KAZI
