Gujarat High Court
Amrutlal Punjalal Panchal vs State Of Gujarat on 9 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/46/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 46 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
================================================================
AMRUTLAL PUNJALAL PANCHAL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MS HASTEE DOSHI, APP ADVOCATE for MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the
Appellant(s) No. 1
MR SP MAJMUDAR(3456) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS CM SHAH, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 09/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Though served, the respondent no. 2- original accused
has not appeared either in person or through an advocate to make
submissions on his behalf.
2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant - original
complainant under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') against the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/46/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
judgment and the order dated 30.06.2010 in Criminal Appeal
No.13 of 2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge
and Presiding Officer, F.T. Court No.4, Vadodara (hereinafter
referred to as 'the learned Appellate Court'), whereby, the learned
Appellate Court has quashed and set aside the judgment and
order of conviction passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First
Class, Vadodara, (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Trial
Court), in Criminal Case No. 601 of 2004 on 12.01.2009, whereby,
the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused to
undergo simple imprisonment for six months and fine of
Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) and in default, simple
imprisonment for 30 days for the offence punishable under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as
'the N.I.Act').
2.1. The parties are hereinafter referred to as 'the
complainant and the accused' as they stood in the original case, for
the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.
3. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present
appeal are as under:
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/46/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
3.1. The complainant and the accused were friends and
were known to each other and between June, 2001 to April 2002,
the accused had taken an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- as advance hand
loan from the complainant. When the complainant demanded for
the amount, the accused gave cheque No.065826 for Rs.65,000/-
dated 20.11.2003 and cheque No.6065827 for Rs.60,000/- dated
15.11.2003 from his account with "Sri Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd."
The cheques were deposited by the applicant in his account, but
both the cheques returned unpaid with the endorsement 'funds
insufficient'. The demand statutory notice was given, which was
duly served to the accused, but the accused did not pay up the
amount within the stipulated period, and hence, the complainant
filed a complaint before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First
Class, at Vadodara, which came to be registered as Criminal Case
No. 601 of 2004.
3.2. The learned Trial Court took conginzance of the
offence and the accused was duly served with the summons and
appeared before the learned Trial Court and the plea of the
accused was recorded at Exh. 4, wherein, the accused denied all
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/46/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
the contents of the complaint and the entire evidence of the
complainant was taken on record. The complainant examined 5
witnesses and produced 8 documentary evidences in support of
the case.
3.3. After the closing pursis was field by the learned
advocate for the complainant at Exh.37, the further statement of
the accused under Section 313 of the Code was recorded wherein
the accused denied the evidence on record. After hearing the
arguments of the learned advocates for both the parties, the
learned Trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order dated
12.01.2009, was pleased to convict and sentence the accused to
undergo simple imprisonment for six months and fine of
Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) and in default, simple
imprisonment for 30 days for the offence punishable under Section
138 of the N.I.Act.
3.4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused
preferred Criminal Appeal No.13 of 2009 before the Sessions
Court, Vadodara, whereby, the appeal came to be allowed and the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/46/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, F.T.
Court No.4, Vadodara quashed and set aside the judgment and
order of conviction passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First
Class, Vadodara in Criminal Case No. 601 of 2004 on 12.01.2009 .
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order passed by the learned First Appellate Court,
the appellant - original complainant has filed the present appeal
mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order passed by
the Appellate Court is ex-facie, illegal, arbitrary and without
properly appreciating the facts of the case and the materials
available on record. The Appellate Court has committed
jurisdictional error while passing the impugned order. The
Appellate Court ought to have appreciated that the learned Trial
Court had given proper and cogent reasons and had discussed the
evidence in details while convicting the respondent no.2. The
Appellate Court ought to have appreciated that the learned Trial
Court has clearly observed that respondent no.2 was not able to
discharge his initial burden of rebutting the presumption under
Section 138 of the N.I.Act and ought to have appreciated that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/46/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
learned Trial Court has held that the respondent no. 2 has not
produced any books of accounts to show that the amount of
cheques was paid to the appellant. The Appellate Court has
completely discarded the evidence produced by the appellant,
which was conclusive to prove that the respondent no. 2 had
committed the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. The
Appellate Court ought to have appreciated that the witnesses that
were examined by the respondent no.2 were all interested
witnesses and their evidence was not reliable and from their
evidence, the defence of the respondent no. 2 was not proved, and
therefore, the order of acquittal passed by the learned Appellate
Court requires to be quashed and set aside.
5. Heard learned advocate Ms. Hastee Doshi for learned
advocate P.P.Majmudar for the appellant - original complainant
and learned APP Ms. C.M.Shah for the respondent - State. Perused
the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the
Appellate Court as well as judgment and order of conviction
passed by the learned Trial Court and have re-appreciated the
entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case. Though
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/46/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
served, the respondent no. 2 has not appeared either in person or
through an advocate.
5.1. Learned advocate Ms. Hastee Doshi for learned
advocate Mr.P.P.Majmudar for the appellant - original respondent
has taken this Court through the entire evidence produced on
record and has vehemently argued that the Appellate Court has
not appreciated the evidence properly and the appellant has
produced cogent evidence to prove the case and has successfully
proved the case against the accused but the Appellate Court has
not considered the same and has acquitted the accused. The
judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Judge is
contrary to law, evidence on record and principles of justice. The
judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned Judge is based
on inferences, not warranted by facts of the case and also on
presumption, not permitted by law. Learned advocate Ms. Hastee
Doshi for the appellant has urged this Court to allow the appeal
and quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order of
acquittal and to the accused guilty for the said offence.
5.2. Learned advocate Ms.C.M.Shah for the respondent -
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/46/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
State has submitted that the learned Appellate Court has
appreciated all the evidence in true perspective and has not
committed any error in acquitting the accused. Therefore, no
interference of this Court is required in the impugned judgment
and the order of acquittal passed by the learned Appellate Court
and has urged this Court to reject the appeal.
6. To prove the case against the accused, the complainant
has filed his affidavit of examination-in-chief at Exh.20 and has
deposed the facts of the complaint on oath and during the cross
examination has admitted that the accused and himself are
teachers and known to each other and were working together for
the past 20 years. The complainant has stated that he had given the
amount between June, 2001 to April, 2002, and sometimes the
accused would borrow Rs.10,000/- and sometimes Rs.20,000/-, but
he and he has a rough note regarding the amounts taken by the
accused and he would produce it on the next date. As far as the
cheque at Exh.22 is concerned, the complainant has admitted that
the hand-writings on the cheques are not his and the complainant
has also admitted that he knows Kalpeshbhai Soni, who is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/46/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
working in the District Panchayat. The complainant has also
admitted to a notice being served by the accused to him and
Gambhirsinh and the accused had also filed an application against
him with the DSP office, which was sent to Vadodara Police
Station for investigation. The defence raised by the accused was
that a person named Vijaybhai Ramanbhai Rana was running a VC
and the accused was paying the amount in the VC and the
complainant had withdrawn Rs.30,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and
Rs.60,000/, which has been denied by the complainant. The
defence of the accused was also that the complainant was ofter
going to collect the amount from him and he had filed an
application with the District Development Officer regarding the
mental harassment by the complainant and his statement was
recorded by the officer from the District Panchayat.
6.1. The defence raised by the accused is mainly that blank
cheques were taken by the complainant and the accused has
examined five witnesses on his behalf. Defence Witness-1, Jinabhai
Nanabai Chauhan examined at Exh.52 was known to both the
complainant and the accused and as they three were working in
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/46/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
Sarnage Primary School. The witness has stated that the accused
had told him that the complainant used to collect money from him
whenever their salary was given. Moreover, the witness has stated
that due to the mental harassment of the complainant, the accused
even though he had two more years of service, he had taken
voluntary retirement, and out of the retirement benefits that he
received, he had paid an amount of Rs.15,000 to one Kalpeshbhai
Soni and the accused was paying money to Vijaybhai Ramanlal
Rana, who was running a VC and the complainant had withdrawn
Rs.30,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.60,000/- on behalf of the accused.
The witness has also stated that the accused had told him that two
blank cheques were taken by the complainant and in the cross-
examination of the witness, this fact is not challenged.
6.2. Defence Witness-2 Kanubhai Koyabhai Chawda
examined at Exh.53 was also a person known to both the
complainant and the accused and he has stated that he was present
at the time of the transaction and the accused had told the
complainant that he does not have amount in his bank, but the
complainant had taken the cheques. The witness has also stated
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/46/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
that the amount was withdrawn by the complainant from the VC
run by Vijaybhai and Rs.30,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.60,000/-
were withdrawn and in the cross-examination of the witness, this
fact has not been challenged.
6.3. Defence Witness-3, Bikhabhai Khursi Parmar
examined at Exh.57 was also known to both the accused and the
complainant and the witness has stated that it was within his
knowledge that the accused had borrowed money from the
complainant as he had gone to get the money from the
complainant with the accused and the complainant had taken
advance cheques from the accused. The witness has stated that the
accused had told the complainant that he did not have the amount
in the bank, but the cheques were taken. In the cross-examination,
the witness has stated that the accused has not given any notice to
take the blank cheques back from the complainant.
6.4. Defence Witness No-4, Chotabhai Mathurbhai Bhalia
examined at Exh.58 has also stated that the complainant had taken
two blank cheques from the accused.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/46/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
6.5. Defence Witness No.-5, Vijaybhai Ramanbhai Rana
examined at Exh.59 was also known to the complainant and the
accused, but has not supported the defence of the accused that he
was running the VC and that the complainant had withdrawn the
amount deposited by the accused.
7. One minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the
complainant on record, the complainant has filed the case that the
accused had taken an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- from him, but the
complainant has not produced any evidence to show that the
accused had taken the amount on particular dates. In the cross-
examination, the complainant has stated that he has a rough note
regarding the dates when the amount was taken, but no such note
has been produced on record. As far as the defence of the accused
is concerned, the accused has stated that blank cheques were taken
by the complainant from him and he had paid the amount through
the VC run by Vijaybhai Ramanbhai Rana and has examined five
witnesses, who have all stated that it was within their knowledge
that the blank cheques were taken by the complainant. Moreover,
as the complainant is a teacher, he ought to have given the dates
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/46/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
when the amount was taken and there is no evidence produced on
record to show that the amount was, in fact, taken by the accused
on particular dates, whereas from the evidence produced by the
defence, a plausible defence has been raised that the blank cheques
were taken. Moreover, the signatures on the cheques and the other
written materials on the cheques are written from a different pen
with a different ink and the hand-writings are also different. As
the cheques were doubtful, the accused had filed an application at
Exh.44 to send the cheques for examination by a Handwriting
Expert, but the learned Trial Court had rejected and dismissed that
application and the accused had filed Revision Application No.203
of 2007 before the Sessions Court, Vadodara, which was pending
for final disposal and during that time, the learned Trial Court had
passed the judgment and order of conviction. As there is an
admission on behalf of the from the complainant that the
handwriting in the cheques were different and considering the
deposition of the defence witnesses, the accused has raised a
plausible defence, and the complainant could not produce any
documentary evidence to show that he had, in fact, given the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/46/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
amount to the complainant and has not even mentioned the dates,
on which, the amount was taken.
8. In view of the above, the learned Appellate Court has
appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and there
does not appear to be any infirmity and illegality in the impugned
judgment and order of acquittal. The learned Appellate Court has
appreciated all the evidence and this Court is of the considered
opinion that the learned Appellate Court was completely justified
in acquitting the accused of the charges leveled against them. The
findings recorded by the learned Appellate Court are absolutely
just and proper and no illegality or infirmity has been committed
by the learned First Appellate Court and this Court is in complete
agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant
order of acquittal recorded by the learned Appellate Court. This
Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the learned Appellate Court and the present
appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is dismissed.
9. The impugned judgment and the order dated
30.06.2010 in Criminal Appeal No.13 of 2009 passed by the learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/46/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, F.T. Court No.4,
Vadodara is hereby confirmed.
10. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be
sent back to the learned First Appellate Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J)
F.S.KAZI.....
