Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 3389 Guj
Judgement Date : 25 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/24348/2024 ORDER DATED: 25/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL) NO. 24348
of 2024
In F/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 46721 of 2024
==========================================================
NITIN ISHAVARBHAI KADHIWALA PROPRIETOR OF SIDDARTH
TEXTILES
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NAUMAN S QURESHI(10669) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SHAKEEL A QURESHI(1077) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MATAFER R PANDE(3952) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS JIRGA JHAVERI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 25/02/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. This is an application preferred by the applicant
under section 419 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita 2023 for leave to appeal against the judgment and
order of acquittal dated 3.10.2024 passed in Criminal Case
No.55431 of 2021 by learned 11 th Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Surat.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/24348/2024 ORDER DATED: 25/02/2025
undefined
2. When the matter is called, learned advocate
Mr.Matafer Pande appearing for respondent No.2 is not
present.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Nauman Qureshi for
the applicant.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Noman Qureshi for the
applicant submits that the applicant and respondent No.2
had business transaction and the amount of Rs.32,000/-,
Rs.31,799/- and Rs.19,051/- were due from respondent
No.2 and towards the same, respondent No.2 has issued
cheques. That the same had returned unpaid. That the
demand statutory notice was given by the applicant and
thereafter, as the amount is not paid, the applicant filed
Criminal Case No.55431 of 2021 under section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 before the learned trial
Court. That the applicant produced all the bills by which
business transactions between the applicant and
respondent No.2 were proved but as the bills were computer
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/24348/2024 ORDER DATED: 25/02/2025
undefined
generated, learned trial Court did not rely upon them
mainly on the ground that the certificate under section 165-
B of the Indian Evidence Act was not produced and
respondent No.2 came to be acquitted. That the applicant
has good case on merits. That by the other documents
produced on record, it appears that the amount is due from
respondent No.2.
5. Considering the averments made in the
application supported by the affidavit and arguments
advanced, it appears that leave to appeal deserves to be
granted. Accordingly, this application is allowed in terms of
Para 4(B).
(S. V. PINTO,J) H.M. PATHAN
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!