Gujarat High Court
Dilipbhai Bhurabhai Barad vs State Of Gujarat on 10 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/13244/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL) NO. 13244
of 2025
In F/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 24049 of 2025
==========================================================
DILIPBHAI BHURABHAI BARAD
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRATIK B BAROT(3711) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 10/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present application is filed by the applicant - original
complainant seeking leave to appeal against the order dated 29.03.2025
passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sanand
(hereinafter referred to as the learned trial Court) acquitting the
respondent - No. 2 in Criminal Case No. 1408 of 2019 filed by the
applicant for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument
Act, 1881. (hereinafter referred to as the NI Act).
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Pratik Barot 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 paper book submitted by the learned advocate
for the applicant.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/13244/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
3. Learned advocate Mr. Pratik Barot appearing for the applicant
submits that the applicant and the respondent No. 2 were known to each
other as the applicant is a practising advocate and the respondent No. 2 is
dealing in land and their offices are situated near to each other. The
applicant had agricultural land in joint ownership with his father and
grand father in Mod Village, Taluka: Sanand, and 90% of the land was
acquired for which compensation was received by the applicant. The
respondent No. 2 was in need of finance and the applicant had advanced
an amount of Rs.1,50,00,000/- to the respondent No. 2 and when the
amount was demanded , the respondent No. 2 gave a cheque No.
"000233" dated 28.08.2019 for Rs.1,25,58,000/- from his account with
Kotak Mahindra Bank, Sanand Branch. The said cheque was deposited by
the applicant in his account with Bank of Baroda, Sanand Branch, but the
cheque returned unpaid with the endorsement "Funds Insufficient". The
demand statutory notice was given, which was duly served to the
respondent No. 2 but the respondent No. 2 did not send any reply to the
notice and did not make any payment within the stipulated period and
hence, the applicant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act
before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sanand, which came to be
registered as Criminal Case No. 1408 of 2019. After the summons were
duly served, the respondent No. 2 appeared and his plea was recorded at
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/13244/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
Exh. 21 and the applicant produced oral and documentary evidence in
support of his case. The applicant step into the witness box and examined
two more witnesses to prove his case and produced ten documentary
evidence in support of his case. The applicant has also produced the copy
of his passbook from his account with Dena Bank and the Income Tax
Returns at Exhs. 40 to 44. After the evidence of the applicant was
recorded and the closing pursis was filed, the further statement of the
respondent No.2 under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein,
the main defense taken by the respondent No. 2 that the cheque did not
bear his signature and the cheque was given as a security to theapplicant.
After the arguments of the learned advocates for the respective parties
were heard, the learned trial Court was pleased to acquit the respondent
No. 2 from the offence under Section 138 of the NI.Act only on the
ground that the applicant had not proved his financial capactity and the
applicant has improved his version in the evidecne. Learned advocate for
the applicant submits that a copy of the passbook of the applicant with
Dena Bank was on record, wherein, the financial capacity of the applicant
has been proved and the respondent No. 2 did not reply to the notice and
did not raise any plausible defense. Learned advocate for the applicant
further submits that learned trial Court has not appreicated the
documentary evidence in proper persepctive and the application seeking
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/13244/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
leave to appeal must be granted.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Pranav Dhagat
appearing for the respondent No. 1 - State has submitted that learned trial
Court has considered all the oral and documentary evidence in proper
perspective and no interference is required in the impugned order 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 order and 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 granted.
(S. V. PINTO,J)
VVM
