Gujarat High Court
Ketanbhai Bhikhubhai Odedara Poa ... vs State Of Gujarat on 1 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18644/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 18644 of 2024
(FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL)
In
F/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 33421 of 2024
=============================================
KETANBHAI BHIKHUBHAI ODEDARA POA HOLDER OF BHAGAT
PETROLEUM
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR SHAIVAL M PATEL(9950) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 01/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Though served to the respondent No. 2, none has
appeared either in person or through an advocate.
2. The present application is filed by the appellant -
original complainant seeking leave to appeal against the order
dated 03.08.2024, passed by learned 4th Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Porbandar, in Criminal Case No. 10583 of 2021,
whereby the learned Trial Court has extended the benefit of the
doubt and acquitted the respondent No. 2 from the offence under
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18644/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter
referred to as "the NI Act").
2.1 The respondent No. 2 is hereinafter referred to as "the
accused" as he stood in the original case for the sake of
convenience, clarity, and brevity.
3. The brief facts culled out from the memo of the present
appeal as well as the record and proceedings are as under:-
3.1. The applicant - original complainant is the partner of
Bhagat Petroleum. The respondent No.2 is supplier of diesel and
used to take diesel on credit from Bhagat Petroleum, towards
which, an amount of Rs.58,92,000/- was due. The respondent No.2
issued cheque no. 430261 dated 28.09.2021 for an amount of
Rs.28,61,000/- and cheque no. 430262 dated 30.09.2021 for an
amount of Rs.19,33,000/- from his account with Canara Bank,
Porbandar Branch. The cheques were deposited by the applicant in
his account with State Bank of India, Udhyognagar Branch,
Porbandar, and the cheques returned unpaid with the
endorsement "Funds Insufficient." The applicant gave the statutory
demand notice, which was duly served to the accused on
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18644/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
09.10.2021, but the accused did not repay the amount. Hence, the
applicant filed the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881, before the Court of the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Porbandar.
3.2. The accused was duly served with the summons, and
the accused appeared. The plea of the accused was recorded at
Exh.10, and the evidence of the applicant was taken on record.
After submitting the written arguments by both the learned
advocates as also after hearing the arguments of both the learned
advocates, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Porbandar, was pleased to acquit the respondent No. 2 for the
offence under Section 138 of the NI Act.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Shaival M. Patel for the
applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Pranav
Dhagat for the respondent State. Perused the judgment and order
passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the judgment and
order passed by the learned Sessions Court.
5. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that after
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18644/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
the respondent No.2 appeared before the Trial Court, the evidence
was taken on record, and the applicant produced 15 documentary
evidences to prove his legally enforceable debt that was due from
the respondent No.2. However, the learned Trial Court has not
appreciated the documentary evidence in proper perspective and
the impugned judgment and order of acquittal came to be passed.
Despite documentary evidence showing that the respondent No. 2
had purchased diesel from the applicant, the learned Trial Court
passed the impugned order of acquittal. The applicant has a good
case on merits, hence, learned advocate for the applicant urges this
Court to allow the application seeking leave to appeal.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Pranav
Dhagat for the respondent-State has fairly submitted that the
learned Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence
produced before it, and hence, no interference is called for by this
Court. Therefore, the application should be rejected, and a
necessary order may be passed.
7. Considering the submissions of the learned advocate
for the applicant as well as the documentary evidence produced
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/18644/2024 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
by the applicant on record, prima-facie, it appears that the
documents have not been properly appreciated in the proper
perspective by the learned Trial Court. Hence, the application
deserves consideration.
8. Consequently, the present application seeking leave to
appeal is granted and the application stands disposed of
accordingly.
(S. V. PINTO,J)
F.S.KAZI
