Gujarat High Court
Patel Wire Partnership Firm Through ... vs State Of Gujarat on 25 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19662/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL) NO. 19662
of 2025
In F/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 32733 of 2025
==========================================================
PATEL WIRE PARTNERSHIP FIRM THROUGH PATEL VICKY AMRUTLAL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JIGAR G GADHAVI(5613) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS. CHETNA SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 25/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present application is filed by the applicant - original
complainant under Section 419 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as "the BNSS") seeking leave to file
the appeal against the judgment and order dated 10-07-2025 passed by
the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Mahesana, Ahmedabad
acquitting the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in Criminal Appeal No. 738 of 2024
filed by the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 challenging the judgment and order of
conviction passed by the learned 11 th Additional Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Mahesana ( hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court) in
Criminal Case No. 6563 of 2022 for the offence under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. (hereinafter referred to as the NI Act).
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19662/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/09/2025
undefined
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Jigar G. Gadhavi appearing for the
applicant and learned APP Ms. Chetna Shah for the respondent No.1 -
State.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Jigar G. Gadhavi for the applicant submits
that the applicant was in business with the respondent No. 2 - firm and
the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are the partners of the firm. The respondent
Nos. 2 to 4 would purchase the iron materials from the applicant and in
all, the materials for an amount of Rs.41,13,525/- was purchased.
Towards which, some amount was transferred online to the account of the
applicant. In all, amount of Rs.39,96,5046/- was outstanding, towards
which, the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 issued cheque No. "000765" dated
19/08/2022 for Rs.7,00,000/- from the account of the firm with The Kadi
Nagarik Sahakari Bank Limited, Kalol Branch. The cheque was
deposited by the applicant in his account with Punjab National Bank,
Mahesana but the cheques returned unpaid with the endorsement " Funds
Insufficient". The applicant sent the demand statutory notice, which was
duly served to the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 but the respondent Nos. 2 to 4
did not repay the amount within the stipulated period and hence, the
applicant filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act
before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahesana,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19662/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/09/2025
undefined
which came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 6563 of 2022. The
learned trial Court took cognizance of the offence and after the
respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were duly served with the summons, they
appeared before the learned trial Court and the pleas were recorded. The
produced oral and documentary evidences in support of his case and after
the closing pursis of the applicant was filed at Exh. 62, the further
statement of the respondent Nos 2 to 4 under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C
was recorded. After the arguments of the learned advocates for both
parties were heard, the learned trial Court, by a judgement and order
dated 25-11-2024 was pleased to find the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 guilty
and was pleased to convict the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 for the offence of
under Section 138 of N.I.Act and sentence the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to
simple imprisonment for a period of one year and ordered the respondent
Nos. 2 to 4 to pay an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- within a period of two
months from the date of the order as compensation to the applicant and in
default, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to undergo simple imprisonment for
three months.
3.1 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of
conviction, the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 filed Criminal Appeal No. 738 of
2024 before the Sessions Court, Mahesana and after the arguments of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19662/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/09/2025
undefined
learned advocates for both the parties were heard, the learned 2nd
Additional Sessions Judge, Mahesana, by the impugned judgement and
order dated 17-07-2025 was pleased to set aside the judgment and order
conviction and acquit the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 for the offence under
Section 138 of the NI Act mainly on the ground that, in the demand
statutory notice, the entire amount of Rs.39,96,546/- was demanded.
Learned advocate for the applicant submits that it is a settled law that the
notice would contain the entire amount due from the respondents Nos. 2
to 4 and the amount of cheque was demanded but the learned Additional
Sessions Judge has not appreciated the same in proper perspective and
has passed the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. Learned
advocate for the applicant further submits that the applicant has good case
on merits and hence the application seeking leave to appeal must be
granted.
4. Learned APP Ms. Chetna Shah for the respondent No. 1 - State
submits that learned Sessions Court has appreciated all the evidence and
no interference is required and hence the application may be rejected.
5. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for
the applicant as also on perusal of the impugned judgment and order
passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Mahesana and the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19662/2025 ORDER DATED: 25/09/2025
undefined
judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court,
prima-facie, it appears that the same set of evidence has been appreciated
by two Courts in a different manner and hence, the issue requires
consideration. Hence, the application seeking leave to appeal deserves
consideration. Consequently, the same is allowed.
(S. V. PINTO,J)
VVM
