Gujarat High Court
Vrajeshbhai Naraharibhai Thakkar ... vs Manubhai Chhatrasinh Parmar on 23 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11762/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL) NO. 11762
of 2025
In F/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 22870 of 2025
==========================================================
VRAJESHBHAI NARAHARIBHAI THAKKAR PROPRIETOR OF GOLDEN
FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS
Versus
MANUBHAI CHHATRASINH PARMAR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JOHNSEY P MACWAN(5498) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR.PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 23/06/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present application is filed by the applicant - original
complainant seeking leave to appeal against the order dated 19.04.2025
passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anand
(hereinafter referred to as the learned trial Court) acquitting the
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in Criminal Case No. 4871 of 2018 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. Jhonsey P. Macwan for the applicant
and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Pranav Dhagat for the
respondent - State. Though served, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have not
appeared either in person or through an advocate. Perused the judgment
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11762/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
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 for the applicant submits that the applicant is
doing business in the name of Golden Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. and
the respondents No. 1 and 2 had purchased fertilizers of agriculture from
the applicant. The business transactions were going on between the
applicant and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and a ledger account was
maintained by the applicant, which is produced at Exh.34. At the end of
the transaction, an amount of Rs.55,47,000/- was outstanding, towards
which, cheque Nos. 000013 and 000014 of Bank of India, Thasra Branch
were given by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. . The cheques were deposited
by the applicant in his account with Sardarganj Mercantile Co.op.Bank
Ltd, Anand Branch, but both the cheques returned unpaid with the
endorsement "Refer to Drawer" . The demand statutory notice was given,
which was duly served but the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not repay the
amount and did no not send reply to the notice and hence, the applicant
filed criminal complaint under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, against the
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Anand, which came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 4871 of 2018.
3.1 After the summons were duly served to the respondent Nos. 1 and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11762/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
2 appeared, they appeared before the learned trial Court and the pleas of
the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were recorded. The applicant produced oral
as well as documentary evidence and also produced the agreement that
was executed between the parties at Exh. 35 along with the other
documents. The applicant has also produced the registration certificate of
his firm and had proved that the amount of Rs.55,47,000/- was the legal
enforceable due amount from the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not step into the witness box or lead
evidence and after the arguments of the learned advocates for the
respective parties, the learned trial Court was pleased to acquit the
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act
mainly on the ground that the cheques were presented after the lapse of
time limit and the amount was barred by the law of limitation. The
learned trial Court was also of the opinion that the cheques were not for
discharge of any existing liability and the impugned order came to be
passed. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the respondent
Nos. 1 and 2 did not deny the execution of the agreement and from the
documentary evidence, the legally enforceable due was proved but the
learned trial Court did not appreciate the documents in proper
perspective. The applicant has a good case on merits, and hence, the
application seeking leave to appeal must be granted.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11762/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Pranav Dhagat
appearing for the respondent-State has submitted that learned trial Court
has considered the document in proper perspective and no interference is
required in the impugned 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
the paper book submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant,
prima-facie, it appears that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the
evidence in proper perspective and hence, the application seeking leave to
appeal deserves consideration and the same is allowed.
(S. V. PINTO,J)
VVM
