Gujarat High Court
Davat Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Through ... vs State Of Gujarat on 15 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12089/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL) NO. 12089
of 2025
In F/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 16059 of 2025
==========================================================
DAVAT BEVERAGES PVT. LTD. THROUGH SAVANBHAI RAJESHBHAI
KHANPARA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
APURVA K JANI(7057) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 15/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present application is filed by the applicant
company "Davat Beverages Pvt. Ltd." - original complainant
through its the authorized person seeking leave to file an appeal
against the judgment and order passed by the Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Gondal, (hereinafter referred to as the "learned
Trial Court") in Criminal Case No. 2206 of 2022 on 30.01.2025,
whereby, the respondent nos.2 to 4 - original accused came to be
acquitted from the offence under Section 138 and 141 of
Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as
"N.I.Act").
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12089/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Apurv K. Jani for the
applicant and learned APP Mr. Pranav Dhagat for the respondent
No.1 - State.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Apurv K. Jani for the applicant
submits that the applicant "Davat Beverages Pvt. Ltd." had
entered into a transaction to transfer a plant situated in Nasik,
Maharashtra to the respondent no. 2 - Max Beverages and a MOU
was executed between the parties and accordingly, the plant was
transferred to the respondent no. 2. That applicant had an
electricity power connection with Maharashtra State Electricity
Board (MSEB) Consumer No. 05805925520 and the power
connection was to be transferred to the respondent no. 2, for
which, the NOC and other documents were executed by the
applicant. The security deposit amount of Rs.13,11,138/- paid by
the applicant was to be transferred to the respondent no. 2 and the
amount of security deposit was to be given by the respondent no. 2
to the applicant, for which, the respondent no. 2 issued cheque no.
067412 dated 15.07.2022 for the amount of Rs.13,11,138/- from
their account with State Bank of India, Govindnagar, Nasik
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12089/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
Branch. The cheque was deposited by the applicant in their
account, but the cheque returned unpaid with the endorsement
"Today's Opening Balance Insufficient". The demand statutory
notice was given, which was duly served to the respondent nos. 2
to 3 but they did not sent any reply and did not repay the amount
within the stipulated time, and hence, the applicant filed a
complaint under Section 138 of N.I.Act before the Court of Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Gondal, which came to be registered as
Criminal Case No. 2206 of 2022. After the respondent nos.2 to 4
were duly served with the summons, the respondent no. 2 did not
appear before the learned Trial Court and the respondent Nos. 3
and 4 appeared before the learned Trial Court. After plea of the
respondents was recorded, the applicant stepped into witness box
and produce the oral and documentary evidence on record in
support of the case. The applicant produced all the documentary
evidence to prove that the transaction in fact had taken place and
also produced the copy of the NOC for transfer MSEB connection
at Exh.48 and Memorandum of Understanding between the parties
at Exh.49, the undertaking of new consumer Annexure-A at Exh.58
and also the Minutes of Meeting at Exhs.59 and 60 and proved
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12089/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
beyond reasonable doubts that the amount of Rs.13,11,138/- was
the legally enforceable due from the respondent nos. 2 to 4. The
learned Trial Court did not appreciate the documents in proper
perspective and concluded that the legally enforceable amount
was not proved and the authority given by the company to the
applicant to file the complaint was not proper. Learned advocate
for the applicant submits that the authority was given prior to
filing of the complaint and it was a valid authority but the same
has not been appreciated in proper perspective. 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 has submitted that the learned Trial Court has considered the
evidence on record and has passed the impugned judgment and
order considering the settled principles of law and hence, the leave
to appeal may not be granted.
5. Considering the submissions of learned advocate for
the applicant as also on perusal of the paper book produced by the
learned advocate for the applicant, prima-facie, it appears that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12089/2025 ORDER DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record
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
