Gujarat High Court
Anopsinh Dayaji Jadeja vs State Of Gujarat on 20 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7404/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 7404 of 2025
(FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL)
In
F/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 8387 of 2025
==============================================================
ANOPSINH DAYAJI JADEJA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==============================================================
Appearance:
MR MEET D PANSURIA(10170) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==============================================================
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 file an appeal against the judgement and order
dated 11.11.2024 passed by the learned 7th Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar in Criminal Case No. 1373 of 2020,
whereby, the respondent No. 2 came to be acquitted from offence
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter
referred to as "N.I.Act").
2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Meet Pansuria for the
applicant and learned APP Mr.Pranav Dhagat for the respondent
No.1 - State.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7404/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025
undefined
3. Learned advocate Mr.Meet Pansuria for the applicant
submits that the applicant and the respondent No.2 were known to
each other and had business transactions. The applicant had
advanced an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to the respondent No.2, and
when the amount was demanded, the respondent No.2 had issued
cheque No.014431 dated 22.11.2019 for the amount of Rs.4,00,000/-
from his account with Axis Bank, Digvijay Plot, Jamnagar Branch.
The cheque was deposited by the applicant in his account, but the
cheque was returned unpaid with the endorsement "Alteration
Require Drawers Authentication". When the applicant informed
the respondent No.2 regarding the return of the cheque, the
respondent No.2 authenticate the cheque and affixed his signature
at the place of alteration and assured the applicant to present the
cheque after one month. Accordingly, the applicant deposited the
cheque after one month, but the said 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 amount was not paid within the stipulated time, and
hence, the applicant had filed the complaint under Section 138 of
N.I.Act before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7404/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025
undefined
which came to be registered as Criminal Case No.1373 of 2020.
After the respondent No.2 was duly served with the summons, his
plea was recorded. The evidence of the applicant was taken on
record. In the further statement, the respondent No.2 came up
with a case that in all, an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was taken from
the applicant and he had repaid the same. The respondent No.2
stepped into the witness box but he did not examine any other
witnesses and the defence of the respondent No.2 was that after
the cheque had returned unpaid, his wife had given another
cheque of Rs.4,00,000/- to the son of the applicant but to prove the
case, his wife or his son did not step into the witness box. The
respondent No.2 produced 14 documentary evidences and after
the arguments of the learned advocates for the respective parties
were heard, the learned Trial Court, by the impugned judgment
and order, was pleased to acquit the respondent No.2 for the
offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. Learned advocate for the
applicant submits that the evidence of the respondent No.2 is
contradictory and there is no plausible defence raised by the
respondent No.2. The learned Trial Court has misappreciated the
evidence and relied upon the contradictory evidence. Learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7404/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025
undefined
advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has a good
case on merits and has urged that the application for leave to
appeal may be granted.
5. Learned APP Mr. Pranav Dhagat for the respondent -
State has submitted that the learned Trial Court has appreciated all
the documents in proper perspective and no interference of this
Court is required, and hence, the application for leave to appeal
may be dismissed.
6. Considering the submissions of learned advocates for
the respective parties and on perusal of the paper book, prima-
facie, it appears that the learned Trial Court has not appreciated
the documents available on record in proper perspective and
hence, the present application requires consideration. The
application for leave to appeal is granted and disposed off
accordingly.
(S. V. PINTO,J)
F.S. KAZI
