Gujarat High Court
Jaypalsinh @ Jashpalsinh Bharatsinh ... vs Tulsidas Nandlal Vasava on 7 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12965/2024 ORDER DATED: 07/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL) NO. 12965
of 2024
In F/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 24420 of 2024
==========================================================
JAYPALSINH @ JASHPALSINH BHARATSINH MAGROLA
Versus
TULSIDAS NANDLAL VASAVA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS HETA S PANCHAL(10896) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 07/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present application is filed by the applicant - original
complainant seeking leave to file an appeal against the order dated
04.05.2024 passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajpipla
(hereinafter referred to as the "learned trial Court") in Criminal Case No.
497 of 2019, whereby the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent
Nos. 1 and 2 from the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NI Act").
2. Heard learned advocate Ms. Heta S Panchal appearing for the
applicant and learned APP Mr. Pranav Dhagat for the respondent No. 2 -
State.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12965/2024 ORDER DATED: 07/07/2025
undefined
3. Learned advocate Ms. Heta Panchal for the applicant submits that
the applicant and the respondent No. 1 were known to each other and the
applicant had advanced an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the respondent
No. 1 as the respondent No. 1 is the proprietor of Mahi Petrol Pump and
he wanted such amount for expansion of his business. The amount was to
be repaid with interest and the amount of Rs. 16,48,000/- was due,
towards which, the respondent No. 1 issued cheque No. "057334" dated
14.02.2019 from his account with State Bank of India, Kawant, Chhota -
Udepur Branch. The cheque was deposited by the applicant in his account
with H.D.F.C. Bank,Vadodara Branch, but the cheque returned unpaid
with the endorsement "Insufficient Funds in the Account" and " Refer to
Drawer". The demand statutory notice was given, which was duly served
to the respondent No. 1 but the amount was not repaid within stipulated
period and hence the complaint was filed under Section 138 of the NI Act
before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajpipla, which came
to be registered as Criminal Case No. 497 of 2019. After the respondent
No. 1 duly served with the summons, he appeared before the learned trial
Court and the plea was recorded at Exh. 8 and thereafter the applicant had
filed oral and documentary evidence in support of his case. Learned
advocate further submits that an agreement was executed between the
parties, in which, the respondent No.1 admitted to taking the amount and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12965/2024 ORDER DATED: 07/07/2025
undefined
had issued the cheque in questin for the same. The said deed was
executed on 23.02.2019 and the cheque was dated 14.02.2019 but the
learned trial Court, without appreciating the documents in proper
perspective and even though the demand statutory notice was duly
served, concluded that the notice was not served and that the amount is
barred by law of limitation and by the impugned judgment and order, the
learned trial Court was pleased to acquit the respondent No. 1 from the
offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. Learned advocate submits that
the further statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded,
wherein, the respondent No. 1 had admitted that the agreement was
executed between them and took up the defense of jurisdiction but did not
step into the witness box and did not examine any witnesses on his
behalf. Moreover, the respondent No. 1 also took up a defense that the
blank cheque was misused but did not produce any documentary evidence
to that effect. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the
applicant has a good case on merits and hence the application seeking
leave to appeal must be allowed.
4. Learned APP Mr. Pranav Dhagat for the respondent No 3 - State
and has submitted that the learned trial Court has appreciated all the
evidence and has passed the impugned judgment and order and no
interference is required and hence, the application seeking leave to appeal
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12965/2024 ORDER DATED: 07/07/2025
undefined
must be rejected.
5. Considering the submissions of learned advocate for the applicant
as also on persual of the paper book produced on record by the learned
advocate for the applicant, it appears that the entire evidence of the
applicant has not been properly appreicated by the learned trial Court and
hence, the application seeking leave to appeal deserves consideration.
Consequently, the same is allowed.
(S. V. PINTO,J)
VVM
