Gujarat High Court
Taslim Murtuja Bagvala vs State Of Gujarat on 21 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3402/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL) NO. 3402 of
2025
In F/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 6143 of 2025
==========================================================
TASLIM MURTUJA BAGVALA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. MAULIK M SONI(7249) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS. JIRGA JHAVERI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 21/04/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present application is filed by the applicant - original
complainant under Section 419(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "BNSS"), seeking leave to file
an appeal against the order dated 10.01.2025 passed by the learned
Additional Judicial Magistrate, Halol at Panchmahal (hereinafter
referred to as the "learned Trial Court") in Criminal Case No. 806
of 2024, whereby the learned Trial Court has acquitted respondent
No. 2 of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the
"NI Act").
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3402/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2025
undefined
2. Heard learned advocate Ms. Jesal Maiwala for learned advocate
Mr. Maulik Soni for the applicant and learned Additional Public
Prosecutor Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the respondent - State. Though
served, the respondent No. 2 has neither appeared in person nor
through an advocate. Perused the impugned judgment and order
passed by the learned Trial Court.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant and
the respondent No. 2 were known to each other. On 05.01.2023,
the respondent No. 2 had taken a hand loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- from
the applicant for a period of one year. Upon completion of the said
period, the applicant demanded repayment, whereupon the
respondent No. 2 issued two cheques - bearing Nos. " 031068" and
"031069", both dated 23.02.2024 - for Rs.1,50,000/- each, drawn
on his account with Bank of Maharashtra, Halol Branch. The
applicant deposited cheque No. "031068" in his account with Shree
Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd., Halol Branch; however, the said cheque
was returned unpaid with the endorsement "Funds Insufficient."
The applicant issued a statutory demand notice, which was duly
served upon respondent No. 2. Despite service of the notice, the
respondent No. 2 failed to repay the amount within the stipulated
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3402/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2025
undefined
time, and hence, the applicant filed a complaint under Section 138
of the NI Act before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Halol,
which came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 806 of 2024.
3.1 The respondent No. 2 was duly served and appeared before the
learned Trial Court. The plea of the respondent No. 2 was
recorded, and the applicant stepped into the witness box and
deposed on oath and oral and documentary evidences were
produced on record. The respondent No. 2 merely denied the
offence and took the defence that the amount was given as an
investment for the business run jointly by him and the applicant, in
which the applicant had a share in the profits, and the cheques in
question were issued only as security and were misused by the
applicant. However, the respondent No. 2 did not produce any oral
or documentary evidence in support of his defence. At the
conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court, after appreciating
the evidence, passed the impugned judgment and order acquitting
respondent No. 2 of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act.
Learned advocate for the applicant submits that, upon perusal of
the entire cross-examination of the applicant, the presumption
under Section 138 of the NI Act was not rebutted by respondent
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3402/2025 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2025
undefined
No. 2, and the applicant's financial capacity was never challenged.
Hence, the judgment and order of acquittal is bad in law.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the
respondent - State has submitted that the learned Trial Court has
appreciated all the evidence in its proper perspective, and therefore,
the present application seeking leave to appeal deserves to be
rejected.
5. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for
the applicant and upon perusal of the papers produced on record, it
prima facie appears that the oral and documentary evidence
produced by the applicant has not been appreciated by the learned
Trial Court in its proper perspective. Hence, the present application
seeking leave to appeal requires consideration. Accordingly, leave
to appeal is granted.
(S. V. PINTO,J)
VVM
