Gujarat High Court
Bharatkumar Talaji Makwana vs State Of Gujarat on 20 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/23612/2024 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL) NO. 23612
of 2024
In F/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 45349 of 2024
================================================================
BHARATKUMAR TALAJI MAKWANA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
DHRUVRAJ R BHAVSAR(9415) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR.PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
REFUSED SERVED (N)(10) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 20/06/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present application is filed by the applicant - seeking leave to
appeal against the judgment and order dated 27.09.2024 passed by the
Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gandhinagar
(hereinafter referred to as the learned trial Court) acquitting the
respondent - No. 2 in Criminal Case No. 1371 of 2024 filed by the
applicant for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument
Act, 1881. (hereinafter referred to as the NI Act).
1.1 The respondent No. 2 is hereinafter referred to as " the accused" as
he stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and
brevity.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/23612/2024 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025
undefined
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Dhruvraj R. Bhavsar for the applicant,
and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Pranav Dhagat for the
respondent - State. Though served, the respondent No. 2 has neither
appeared through an advocate nor appeared in person before this Court.
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.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Dhruvraj R. Bhavsar for the applicant
submits that the applicant had advanced an amount of Rs.10,64,000/- to
the respondent No. 2 and an agreement was executed between the parties
wherein the acknowledgment of the debt was admitted by the respondent
No. 2. The respondent had given cheque No. "000009" dated 01.01.2021
for the amount of Rs.10,64,000/- from his account with I.D.F.C. Bank,
C.G.Road Branch, to the applicant. The applicant deposited the said
cheque in his account with H.D.F.C.Bank, Sector-16, Gandhinagar
Branch . Ltd but the said cheque returned unpaid on 02.01.2021 with the
endorsement "Funds Insufficient". The demand statutory notice was
given to the respondent No. 2, which was served to the respondent No.2
but the respondent No. 2 and did not repay the amount within the
stipulated time and hence the criminal complaint was filed under Section
138 of the NI Act, which was registered as Criminal Case No. 1371 of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/23612/2024 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025
undefined
2022 before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gandhinagar. The
summons were issued to the respondent No. 2 and after the summons
were duly served and the respondent No. 2 appeared before the learned
trial Court and the plea of the respondent No. 2 was recorded, the
applicant produced all documentary and oral evidences on record. The
applicant also examined witness Mahesbhai Savdhanji Thakor, who was
the witness of the agreement which was executed between the parties
which was produced at Exh.23. Learned advocate for the applicant
submits that the learned trial Court did not appreciate the documents
produced on record in proper perspective and even though the deed
executed between the parties was the acknowledge of the debt the learned
trial Court has not considered the same accordingly. The applicant has a
good case on merits. hence, the application seeking leave to appeal
deserves to be granted.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Pranav Dhagat
appearing for the respondent-State has submitted that learned trial Court
has appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and no interference is
required in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial
Court 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 judgment and order and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/23612/2024 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025
undefined
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 the applicant has a good case on
merits. Hence, the application seeking leave to appeal deserves
consideration and the same is allowed.
(S. V. PINTO,J)
VVM
