Sunrise Mobility Solutions Thro Avi ... vs State Of Gujarat
2025 Latest Caselaw 3159 Guj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 3159 Guj
Judgement Date : 18 February, 2025

Gujarat High Court

Sunrise Mobility Solutions Thro Avi ... vs State Of Gujarat on 18 February, 2025

                                                                                                          NEUTRAL CITATION




                             R/CR.MA/22349/2024                             ORDER DATED: 18/02/2025

                                                                                                          undefined




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                        R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL) NO. 22349
                                                    of 2024
                                    In F/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 40360 of 2024
                       ==========================================================
                            SUNRISE MOBILITY SOLUTIONS THRO AVI RAJANBHAI AGGRAWAL
                                                     Versus
                                            STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR ABHIJIT RATHOD(12976) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                       MR. BHARGAV PANDYA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                       ==========================================================

                            CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO

                                                        Date : 18/02/2025

                                                         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 "B.N.S.S.") seeking leave to appeal against the

order dated 20.09.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First

Class, Danta, Banaskantha (hereinafter referred to as the "trial Court")

acquitting the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 - accused in Criminal Case No.

1048 of 2022 filed by the applicant for the offence under Section 138 of

the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.(hereinafter referred to as the "NI

Act ")

1.1 The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are hereinafter referred to as " the

accused" as they stood in the original case for the sake of convenience,

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/22349/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2025

undefined

clarity and brevity.

2. The brief facts culled out from the memo of the present appeal as

well as the record and proceedings are as under:-

2.1 The applicant is doing the business in the name of Sunrise

Mobilization Solution and the accused No. 2 is the Director of Nishiv

Enterprise Private Limited- accused No. 1. That there were business

dealing between the parties and 4T oil was supplied by the applicant to

the accused towards which an amount of Rs.49,01,107/- was due. The

accused issued cheque No. 986702 dated 27.06.2022 of his account with

Indian Bank, Prahlad Nagar Branch, Ahmedabad for Rs.47,01,107/- and

the cheque was deposited by the applicant in his account with HDFC

Bank, Ambaji Branch, but the cheque returned unpaid and the applicant

thereafter had given the demand statutory notice but the accused did not

reply to the notice and did not pay the amount and hence, the applicant

has filed the complaint before the Court of learned Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Danta.

2.2 The accused were duly served with the summons and the accused

appeared and the plea of the accused were recorded at Exh. 11 and the

evidence of the applicant was taken on record. After the evidence of the

applicant was closed, the further statement of the accused U/s 313 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded and after hearing the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/22349/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2025

undefined

arguments of both the learned advocates, the learned Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Deesa was pleased to acquit the accused, by giving

benefit of doubt, for the offence of under Section 138 of the N.I.Act.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Abhijeet Rathod for the applicant and

learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Bharga Pandya, for the

respondent State. Though served, the respondents have not appeared

either in person or through an advocate. Perused the judgment and order

passed by the learned trial Court.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Abhijeet Rathod submits that the applicant

had produced all documentary evidences including tax invoice, e-way bill

and the documents showing that the business transaction had, in fact,

taken place between them but the learned trial Court has not appreciated

the documents in proper perspective. The accused had paid an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- by RTGS and the remaining amount was to be paid but the

accused has taken a false defense that the base oil lubricants was ordered

and not 4T oil but in fact the accused himself is in the business of 4T oil

and the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence.

Learned advocate submits that the applicant has good case on merits and

hence leave to appeal must be granted.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Bhargav Pandya for the

respondent-State has submitted that learned trial Court and thehas

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/22349/2024 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2025

undefined

appreciated all the evidence in a different manner and the issue requires

consideration and hence appropriate orders may be passed.

6. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order and the evidence

produced by the applicant on record, which has been in the form of a

paper book and it is on record that the applicant had produced