Gujarat High Court
Ankit Mahendrabhai Shah vs State Of Gujarat on 7 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2513/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL)
NO. 2513 of 2025
In F/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 31571 of 2024
=============================================
ANKIT MAHENDRABHAI SHAH
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR. JAY M THAKKAR(6677) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR KAMLESHKUMAR B PATEL(12881) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. RAAJEN D JADHAV(10026) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=============================================
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 11.01.2024 passed by the learned Additional Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Navsari (hereinafter referred to as the
"learned Trial Court") in Criminal Case No. 322 of 2017, whereby,
respondent No.1 - original accused came to be acquitted from the
offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881
(hereinafter referred to as "N.I.Act").
2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Jay Thakkar for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2513/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/07/2025
undefined
applicant and learned APP Mr. Pranav Dhagat for the respondent
No.1 - State and learned advocate Raajen D Jadav for the
respondent no.2.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Jay Thakkar for the applicant
submits that the applicant is the Director of "Khushi Infrabuild
Pvt. Ltd." and was in the business of building materials and the
respondent no. 2 has business transactions with the applicant as he
was contractor for roads. In October- November, 2015, building
material was purchased from the applicant and an amount of
Rs.24,50,000/- was outstanding, towards which, cheque No.121767
on 19.11.2016 for the amount of Rs.24,50,000/- from his account
with Axis Bank, Navagam, Surat Branch was given to the
applicant. The applicant deposited the said cheque in his account
with Yes Bank, Navsari Branch, but the cheque returned unpaid
with the endorsement "Drawers Signature Differs". The demand
statutory notice was given, which was duly served to the
respondent no. 2 but the respondent no. 2 did not give any reply
and did not repay the amount within the stipulated time, and
hence, the applicant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2513/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/07/2025
undefined
N.I.Act before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Navsari,
which came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 322 of 2017.
After the respondent no. 2 was duly served with the summons, he
appeared before the learned Trial Court and after his plea was
recorded, the applicant stepped into the witness box and examined
three witnesses and produced seven documentary evidence in
support of his case. After the closing pursis was filed, the further
statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. of the respondent no. 2
was recorded but the respondent no. 2 did not step into the
witness box and did not produce any evidence in support of his
case. The learned Trial Court, after hearing the arguments of the
advocates for the respective parties, was pleased to conclude that
the legally enforceable amount was proved and the cheque was
issued by the respondent no. 2 but considering the fact that the
company "Khushi Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd." is not joined as party and
there was no authorization of the applicant to file the complaint,
was pleased to pass the impugned order of acquittal. Learned
advocate Mr. Jay Thakkar for the applicant submits that the
learned Trial Court has merely relied on procedural defect and
irregularities and the case was dismissed mainly on the fact that
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2513/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/07/2025
undefined
the authorization of the applicant was not produced on record, but
as per the judgment passed in the case of Haryana State
Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited Vs. Jayam
Textiles and Another reported in (2014) 4 SCC 704 , the learned
Trial Court ought to have given an opportunity to the applicant to
produce the authorization on record. Learned advocate for the
applicant submits that the defect was a curable defect and
opportunity should have been granted to the applicant to cure the
defect and hence, application for leave to appeal is required to be
granted. Learned advocate further submits that the applicant has
a good case on merits and has urged this Court to allow the
present application.
4. Learned APP Mr. Pranav Dhagat for the respondent -
State and learned advocate Mr.Raajen Jadav for the respondent
No. 2 have jointly submitted that the learned Trial Court has
appreciated all the documents produced by the applicant and has
also considered the evidence and passed the impugned order of
acquittal considering the settled principles of law and hence, the
leave to appeal may not be granted.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2513/2025 ORDER DATED: 07/07/2025
undefined
5. Considering the submissions of learned advocate for
the applicant as also perusal of the paper book available on record,
prima facie, it appears that the learned Trial Court has failed to
appreciate the entire evidence in proper perspective, and hence, in
the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in the
considered opinion of this Court, the application deserves to be
considered. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal is
granted and disposed off accordingly.
(S. V. PINTO,J)
F.S. KAZI
