Gujarat High Court
Sunilkumar Mahendrabhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 24 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5659/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL) NO. 5659 of
2025
In F/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 10314 of 2025
================================================================
SUNILKUMAR MAHENDRABHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR MIHIR H PATHAK(5261) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PRANAV DHAGAT, 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 applicant
seeking leave to file an appeal against the order dated 11.02.2025
passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jambusar
(hereinafter referred to as the "learned Trial Court") in Criminal
Case No. 2339 of 2022, whereby, the learned Trial Court was
pleased to acquit the accused from the offence under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to "the N.I.
Act" for short).
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Mihir H. Pathak for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5659/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/06/2025
undefined
applicant and learned APP Mr. Pranav Dhagat for the respondent
No.1 - State.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Mihir H. Pathak for the
applicant submits that the applicant and the respondent No.2 were
known to each other and the respondent No.2 had a huge debt on
him and wanted an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- and he demanded
the amount from the applicant and the applicant, by mortgaging
his land in R.B.L. Bank, Padra Branch, had given the amount to the
respondent No. 2 in presence of Alpeshbhai Bhailalbhai Patel,
brother in-law of the applicant. The respondent no. 2 had to return
the amount within a period of one year and as one year was over,
the applicant demanded the amount from the respondent no. 2 on
many occasions but the respondent no. 2 did not repay the
amount. Thereafter, the respondent no. 2 gave cheque Nos .917136
and 917137 on 01.08.2022 for an amount of Rs.9,90,000/- each from
his account with State Bank of India, Jambusar Branch to the
applicant. The cheques were deposited by the applicant in his
account, but the cheques returned unpaid with the endorsement
"Account Blocked Sit". The demand statutory notice was given,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5659/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/06/2025
undefined
which was duly served to the respondent No.2 but the respondent
No.2 did not send any reply to the notice nor repaid the amount,
and hence, the applicant filed the complaint under Section 138 of
N.I.Act before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Jambusar, which came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 2339
of 2022. The respondent no. 2 was duly served with the summons
and he appeared before the learned Trial Court and his plea was
recorded and the entire evidence of the applicant was taken on
record. The applicant has examined witness Alpeshbhai
Bhailalbhai Patel in whose presence, the amount was given and
proved the legally enforceable debt. Learned advocate for the
applicant submits that after appreciation of the entire evidence on
record, the learned trial Court was pleased to conclude that the
applicant has not proved his legally enforceable debt and by the
impugned judgment and order, was pleased to acquit the
respondent no. 2 from the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act.
Learned advocate submits that the applicant has a good case on
merits and learned Trial Court has not appreciated the entire
evidence in proper perspective, and hence, the application for
leave to appeal may be granted.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5659/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/06/2025
undefined
5. Learned APP Mr. Pranav Dhagat for the respondent
State has submitted that the learned Trial Court has considered all
the documents produced by the applicant and has also considered
the evidence and has passed the impugned order of acquittal
considering the settled principles of law and hence, the leave to
appeal may not be granted.
6. Considering the submissions of learned advocate for
the applicant as also the paper book on record and the impugned
judgment and order, prima facie, the learned Trial Court has not
appreciated the entire evidence 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
