Gujarat High Court
Jubedaben Muslimbhai Amrelivala vs State Of Gujarat on 13 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19401/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL) NO. 19401
of 2025
In F/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 37961 of 2025
==========================================================
JUBEDABEN MUSLIMBHAI AMRELIVALA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SURAJ B MATIEDA(10499) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Date : 13/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present application is filed by applicant original
complainant to appeal seeking leave to file an appeal against the
judgment and decree dated 05.08.2025 passed by the learned 3rd
Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara, in Criminal Appeal No. 82 of
2024, whereby the conviction order dated 10.01.2024 passed by
the learned 16th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara in
Criminal Case No. 32704 of 2019, was quashed and set-aside and
the respondent no. 2 was acquitted from the offences punishable
under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. P. P. Majmudar for the appellant
and learned APP Mr. Yuvraj Brahmbhatt for the respondent no. 1
state an argument that as the respondent no. 2 and the brother of
the applicant were friends, therefore, the respondent no. 2 was in
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19401/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/11/2025
undefined
need of monetary requirement, respondent no. 2 had taken the
hand loan amounting to Rs. 3,00,000/- and therefore paying back
the said legal dues, the respondent no. 2 had issued the cheque of
Rs. 3,00,000/- bearing no. 997149 drawn on the State Bank of
India, Fatehganj Branch, Vadodara and when the applicant
deposited the said cheque on 05.09.2019 for clearance in Central
Bank of India, Karelibaug Branch, Vadodara, the same was
returned dishonored on 06.09.2019 with the endorsement "funds
insufficient", therefore, on 17.09.2019 the applicant had issued the
demand notice to the respondent no. 2 under section 138 of the
Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 which was duly served to the
respondent no. 2 on 18.09.2019 then too, the respondent no. 2 did
not pay back the cleared the legal dues of the applicant and
neither gave any reply to the said demand notice and therefore,
the applicant had filed complaint under section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. The present application has provided oral as well as
documentary evidence. Thereafter, the plea of the respondent no.
2 original accused came to be recorded, wherein she pleaded not
to be guilty and the Additional Chied Judicial Magistrate Vadodara
after conclusion of trial, respondent no. 2 was convicted for the
offences punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act and was sentenced to undergo One year of simple
imprisonment along with the compensation amount of the
dishonored cheques that is of Rs. 3,00,000/- in default of which
further two months of simple imprisonment was passed in the said
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19401/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/11/2025
undefined
order has been quashed and set-aside by the 3rd Additional
Sessions Judge, Vadodara, in Criminal Appeal No. 82 of 2024.
4. Learned Advocate for the applicant has argued that the trial
court has not appreciated the evidence in proper prospective
Learned advocate submits that the applicant has a good case on
merits and the applicant seeking relief to appeal be granted.
5. Learned APP Mr. Yuvraj Brahmbhatt for the respondent
submits that learned trial Court has considered all documents
produced by applicant and also considered the evidence and has
passed the order of acuqittal considering the settled principles of
law and hence the leave to appeal cannot be granted.
6. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and having
considered the submissions advanced by the respective parties so
also having considered the judgment of the trial Court and having
considered the ratio laid down in the judgment reported in 2025
LiveLaw SC 383 in the case of Ashok Singh vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and another (supra), prima facie, present matter requires
consideration and hence the present application for leave to
appeal is granted and it is disposed of accordingly.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)
SAKSHI MAURYA
