Gujarat High Court
Yunus Hanifbhai Sheikh vs Gayakwad Satishkumar Samuel on 3 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10930/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL) NO. 10930
of 2025
In F/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 20744 of 2025
==========================================================
YUNUS HANIFBHAI SHEIKH
Versus
GAYAKWAD SATISHKUMAR SAMUEL & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
LUV S SHAH(9365) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS. CHETNA SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 03/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present application is filed by the applicant - original
complainant seeking leave to appeal against the order dated 25.04.2025
passed by the Court of 11TH Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,
Negotiable Instrument Act, Court No. 31, Ahmedabad, (hereinafter
referred to as the learned trial Court) acquitting the respondent - No. 1 in
Criminal Case No. 7692 of 2021 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 No. 1 is hereinafter referred to as " the accused" as
he stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and
brevity.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10930/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Luv S. Shah for the applicant and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Chetna Shah for the respondent
No. 2 - State. Though served, the respondent No. 1 has not appeared
either in person or through an advocate. Perused the judgment and order
passed by the learned trial Court as well as the paper book submitted by
the learned advocate for the applicant.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Luv S Shah for the applicant submits that
the applicant and the respondent No. 1 were known to each other and the
respondent No. 1 was in need of money and during 05.04.2017 to
27.04.2017, the applicant had advanced an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and
thereafter a further amount of Rs.90,000/- was given to the respondent
No. 1 on 28.12.2017. In all, the total amount of Rs.2,40,000/- was
outstanding to be taken from the respondent No. 1 and a notarized
agreement was executed between the parties and a promissory note was
also written by the respondent No.1. The respondent No. 1 gave a cheque
"491510" dated 10.11.2020 for the amount of Rs.2,40,000/- from his
account with State Bank of India, Sabarmati Branch and the cheque was
deposited by the applicant in his account with State Bank of India,
Sabarmati Branch, but the said cheque returned unpaid with the
endorsement "Funds Insufficient". The demand statutory notice was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10930/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
given to the respondent No. 1, which was served to the respondent No.1.
However, the respondent No. 1 did not submit any reply and did not
repay the amount within stipulated time and hence the criminal complaint
was filed under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, which was registered as
Criminal Case No. 7692 of 2021 before the Court of the Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad. After, the respondent No. 1 was
duly served with the summons, he appeared before the learned trial Court
and his plea was recorded and the applicant submitted the affidavit of
examination in chief and produced oral and documentary evidence
including the deed executed between the parties at Exh.13 and the
promissory note at Exh. 14. During the proceedings, as the applicant was
demanding his outstanding amount from the respondent No. 1, the
respondent No. 1 preferred an application against the applicant in the
Sabarmati Police Station and the statements of the applicant as also the
respondent No. 1 have also been recorded during the police inquiry and
thereafter it was agreed upon that the outstanding amount will be repaid
by the respondent No. 1 in installments of Rs.5000/- each and the
application of the respondent No. 1 was filed and disposed of. The
respondent No. 1 did not clear the outstanding amount and after the
applicant had submitted his affidavit of examination in chief, a part of
cross examination was undertaken by the learned advocate for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10930/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
respondent No. 1. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that
thereafter, the respondent No. 1 did not appear before the learned trial
Court and did not produced any evidence nor stepped into the witness box
and after the arguments of the learned advocate for the respective parties
were heard, the learned trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order,
was pleased to acquit the respondent No. 1 from the offence under
Section 138 of the NI Act. Learned advocate submits that the applicant
has a good case on merits and has submitted that the applicant had proved
from the oral and documentary evidence that the amount of Rs.2,40,000/-
was outstanding amount but the learned trial Court did not appreciate the
evidence in proper perspective and hence the application seeking leave to
appeal must be granted.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Ms. Chetna Shah appearing
for the respondent No. 1 - State has submitted that learned trial Court has
appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and no interference is
required in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial
Court and hence the application seeking leave to appeal must be rejected.
5. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for
the applicant as also on perusal of the impugned judgment and order and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10930/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
the paper book submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant, prima
- facie, it appears that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the
documents in proper perspective and hence, the application seeking leave
to appeal deserves consideration and the same is allowed.
(S. V. PINTO,J)
VVM
