Manojkumar Jivanlal Prajapati vs State Of Gujarat
2026 Latest Caselaw 120 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Manojkumar Jivanlal Prajapati vs State Of Gujarat on 19 January, 2026

                                                                                                                       NEUTRAL CITATION




                            R/CR.A/1153/2009                                          JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026

                                                                                                                       undefined




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                               R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1153 of 2009


                       FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                       HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
                       ==========================================================

                                    Approved for Reporting                          Yes            No

                       ==========================================================
                                                MANOJKUMAR JIVANLAL PRAJAPATI
                                                            Versus
                                                   STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR RJ GOSWAMI(1102) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                       MR MATAFER R PANDE(3952) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
                       MR YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
                       ==========================================================

                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER

                                                           Date : 19/01/2026

                                                           ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the

judgment and order of acquittal dated 07.02.2009, passed by th the learned 10 Additional Senior Civil Judge and Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Surat in Criminal Case No.944 of

2003, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act, the appellant - original

complainant has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code").

2. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1153/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026

undefined

such that as there were friendly relations between the

complainant - Manojkumar Jivanlal Prajapati and the

accused - Uttambhai Somabhai Patel and the accused was in

need of money, he took Rs.4,00,000/- on different dates from

the complainant; the accused did not repay the same inspite

of repeated reminders; the accused gave a cheque of

Rs.50,000/- dated 30.04.2003, which was presented by the

complainant in the bank on 01.05.2003, but the said cheque

was returned with the endorsement 'insufficient funds'; that

the accused assured the complainant to deposit the cheque

again; and that after such assurance that it will be cleared,

the complainant again deposited the said cheque on

07.05.2003, which was returned with the endorsement

'insufficient funds' and again, on the assurance given by the

accused, the complainant deposited the cheque again on 25.06.2003, but the same returned with the endorsement

'insufficient funds'. Therefore, the complainant sent a

statutory notice to the accused through advocate, which was

vaguely replied by the accused. Therefore, complaint was filed

by the complainant as the accused did not repay the amount.

3. Considering the verification of the complainant and

the documents, the complaint was registered, the accused was

called for by serving the summons, the accused remained

present before the Court, he was provided with the complaint

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1153/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026

undefined

and the documents. On recording the statement of the

accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. In order to prove the case, various oral and

documentary evidence was produced before the trial Court,

which are described in the impugned judgment.

5. After hearing both the parties and after analysis

of evidence adduced by the complainant, the learned trial

Judge acquitted the accused for the offence, by holding that

the complainant has failed to prove the case beyond

reasonable doubt.

6. Learned advocate for the appellant-original

complainant has pointed out the facts of the case and having taken this Court through both, oral and documentary

evidence, recorded before the learned trial Court, would

submit that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate

the evidence in true sense and perspective; and that the trial

Court has committed error in acquitting the accused. It is

submitted that the learned trial Court ought not to have

given much emphasis to the contradictions and/or omissions

appearing in the evidence and ought to have given weightage

to the dots that connect the accused with the offence in

question. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1153/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026

undefined

erroneously come to the conclusion that the complainant has

failed to prove its case. It is also submitted that the learned

Judge ought to have seen that the evidence produced on

record is reliable and believable and it was proved beyond

reasonable doubt that the accused had committed an offence

in question. He has taken this Court, through the findings of

the learned trial Court, and submitted that the learned trial

Court has not considered the evidence led before it in proper

perspective, has not considered the provisions of the NI Act

presumption that the cheque is issued by the accused for

valid consideration in absence of any evidence led by the

accused to the contrary. It is, therefore, submitted that this

Court may allow this appeal as the learned trial Court has

erred in acquitting the accused.

7. As against that, learned advocate for the

respondent/s would support the impugned judgment passed by

the learned trial Court and has submitted that the learned

trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting the

accused. The trial Court has taken possible view as the

complainant has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable

doubt. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal

by confirming the impugned judgment and order passed by

the learned trial Court.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1153/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026

undefined

7.1 It is further submitted by learned advocate for the

respondent/s that the complainant has not shown anything to

prove that the same was a legally enforceable debt; that on

which date and year, the said amount was given to the

accused; that there are contradictions with regard to the date

of giving of the said amount to the complainant. It is

therefore submitted that the learned trial Court has not

committed any error in passing the order of acquittal of the

accused.

8. In the aforesaid background, considering the oral

as well as documentary evidence on record, independently and

dispassionately and considering the impugned judgment and

order of the trial Court, the following aspects weighed with

the Court :

8.1 Considering the entire evidence, it has come on

record that the complainant had friendly relation with the

brother of the accused and therefore, the amount of

Rs.4,00,000/- were given to the accused, in installments, due

to the requirement of the accused for his business; and that

the cheque issued by the complainant was of DND Textiles,

while the cheque issued by the accused to the complainant

was on his personal name.

The complainant has not placed any evidence on

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1153/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026

undefined

record that he is the Proprietor of DND Textiles; and that

the complaint, that has been filed is filed by the

complainant, is in his individual name i.e. Manojkumar

Jivanlal Prajapati, whereas the cheque, that was issued by

the complainant, was in the name of DND Textiles.

Therefore, the complainant has failed to prove that any

amount was given by the complainant to the opponent in his

personal capacity.

Moreover, the complainant has not been able to

prove that the payment was made from the account of the

DND Textiles. The complainant has also not produced any

document to prove that he is the Proprietor of the DND

Textiles. If the order of the trial Court is taken into

consideration, the complainant has not been able to prove the

cheque and return memo and the said documents have not been exhibited. Even the notice which is produced vide

Exh.11 is also issued by the complainant in his personal

capacity and not in the name of the DND Textiles.

8.2 If the evidence of Navinbhai Babubhai Patel, at

Exh.25, who was the Clerk at Surat District Cooperative

Bank Ltd., is taken into consideration, it transpires from his

evidence that the accused had Savings Account No.705 in the

Navapura Branch of the said Bank. Considering the

statement of the said account, which is produced vide Exh.26,

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1153/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026

undefined

the said statement does not bear the description of the

disputed cheque and the entire record, as per the deposition

of the said witness, have been destroyed, the complainant has

not been able to prove as to for what reason the said cheque

has been dishonoured.

8.3 If the notice produced vide Exh.11 is taken into

consideration, the said notice is issued by the complainant to

the accused and vide Exh.12, the accused has given a reply

to the said notice.

Vide Exhs.17, 18, 19 and 21, the documents

pertaining to the DND Textile are produced, but if Exh.26 is

taken into consideration, from the said statement, it cannot

be established that the disputed cheque has been

dishonoured.

It has also come on record that the said cheque

was given in presence of Babubhai Somabhai Patel and

Nathubhai Somabhai Patel, but the fact remains that the

complainant have not examined the said persons to prove his

case.

Moreover, the cheque, that was given, was in the

name of DND Textile and the cheque, that was returned,

was in the name of the complainant.

In view of the fact that since the complainant has

not been able to prove the disputed cheque and/or the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1153/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026

undefined

acknowledgment of the cheque returned; and since the

complainant has not been able to prove that he is the

proprietor and/or the owner of the DND Textiles, this appeal

is required to be dismissed.

8.4 Moreover, as the appellant could not produce any

evidence to prove that the he is the owner and/or the sole

Proprietor of the DND Textiles, he has no locus standi to file

the complaint. In the instant case, the DND Textiles was the

payee and the appellant could not claim to be the payee of

the cheque. In view of the same, the complainant has not

been able to establish the fact that the cheque was issued by

him in his individual capacity.

8.5 On careful reading of Section 138 of the NI Act,

before the person can be prosecuted, it has to be established

that the cheque is drawn by a person and on an account

maintained by him with a banker and should be issued for

the payment of any amount of money to another person from

out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of

any debt or other liability, but in the present case, the

complainant is not able to prove that the cheque was issued

from his account and that the cheque was issued by the

accused against the loan given to him. Therefore also, the

learned trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting

the accused.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1153/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026

undefined

9. Further, learned advocate for the appellant is not

in a position to show any evidence to take a contrary view

in the matter or that the approach of the Court below is

vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the decision is

perverse or that the Court below has ignored the material

evidence on record. In above view of the matter, this Court

is of the considered opinion that the Court below was

completely justified in passing impugned judgment and order.

10. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

of the case and while considering the scope of appeal under

Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, no case

is made out to interfere with the impugned judgment and

order of acquittal.

11. In view of above facts and circumstances of the

case, on my careful re-appreciation of the entire evidence, I

found that there is no infirmity or irregularity in the

findings of fact recorded by learned trial Court and under

the circumstances, the learned trial Court has rightly

acquitted the respondent/s - accused for the elaborate reasons

stated in the impugned judgment and I also endorse the

view/finding of the learned trial Court leading to the

acquittal.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1153/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026

undefined

12. In view of the above and for the reasons stated

above, the present Criminal Appeal fails to prove its case

and the same deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed,

accordingly. Record & Proceedings be remitted to the

concerned trial Court forthwith.

(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J) SRILATHA