Gujarat High Court
Ketanbhai Bhikhubhai Odedra Partner Of ... vs State Of Gujarat on 24 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6310/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 6310 of 2025
(FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL)
In F/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2062 of 2025
================================================================
KETANBHAI BHIKHUBHAI ODEDRA PARTNER OF BHAGAT PETROLEUM
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR SHAIVAL M PATEL(9950) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS CM SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 24/06/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present application is filed by the appellant -
original complainant under Section 419 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "B.N.S.S.") seeking leave to
appeal against the order dated 30.09.2024, passed by learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Porbandar in Criminal Case
No. 4373 OF 2021, whereby the learned Trial Court has extended
the benefit of the doubt and acquitted the respondent No. 2 from
the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 (hereinafter referred to as "the N.I.Act").
1.1 The respondent No. 2 is hereinafter referred to as "the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6310/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/06/2025
undefined
accused" as he stood in the original case for the sake of
convenience, clarity, and brevity.
2. The brief facts culled out from the memo of the present
appeal as well as the record and proceedings are as under:-
2.1. The applicant - original complainant is the partner of
Bhagat Petroleum. The respondent No. 2 is engaged in fishing
business and used to take diesel on credit from Bhagat Petroleum,
towards which, an amount of Rs.1,53,576/- was due. The
respondent No.2 issued cheque No. 000081 dated 22.02.2021 from
his account with HDFC Bank Ltd., Porbandar Branch. The cheque
was deposited by the applicant in his account with State Bank of
India, Porbandar Branch, and the cheque returned unpaid with the
endorsement "Funds Insufficient." The applicant gave the statutory
demand notice, which was duly served to the accused on
07.03.2021, but the accused did not repay the amount. Hence, the
applicant filed the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881, before the Court of the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Porbandar.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6310/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/06/2025
undefined
2.2. The accused was duly served with the summons, and
the accused appeared. The plea of the accused was recorded at
Exh.11, and the evidence of the applicant was taken on record.
After submitting the written arguments by both the learned
advocates as also after hearing the arguments of both the learned
advocates, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Porbandar, was pleased to acquit the respondent No. 2 for the
offence under Section 138 of the NI Act.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Shaival M. Patel for the
applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. C.M.Shah
for the respondent State. Though served, the respondent No.2 has
not appeared either in-person or through an advocate. Perused the
judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court as well as
the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Court.
4. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that after
the respondent No.2 appeared before the Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Porbandar, the evidence was taken on record, and the
applicant produced 10 documentary evidences to prove his legally
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6310/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/06/2025
undefined
enforceable debt that was due from the respondent No.2.
However, the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the
documentary evidence in proper perspective and the impugned
judgment and order of acquittal came to be passed. Despite
documentary evidence showing that the respondent No. 2 had
purchased diesel from the applicant, the learned Trial Court
passed the impugned order of acquittal. The applicant has a good
case on merits, hence, learned advocate for the applicant urges this
Court to allow the application seeking leave to appeal.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms.C.M.Shah for
the respondent-State has fairly submitted that the learned Trial
Court has properly appreciated the evidence produced before it,
and hence, no interference is called for by this Court. Therefore,
the application should be rejected, and a necessary order may be
passed.
6. Considering the submissions of the learned advocate
for the applicant as well as the documentary evidence produced
by the applicant on record, prima-facie, it appears that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6310/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/06/2025
undefined
documents have not been properly appreciated in the proper
perspective by the learned Trial Court. Hence, the application
deserves consideration.
7. Consequently, the present application seeking leave to
appeal is granted and the application stands disposed of
accordingly.
(S. V. PINTO,J)
F.S.KAZI
