Harshadkumar Vaikuthram Halani vs State Of Gujarat
2026 Latest Caselaw 124 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Harshadkumar Vaikuthram Halani vs State Of Gujarat on 19 January, 2026

                                                                                                                      NEUTRAL CITATION




                            R/CR.A/2354/2008                                         JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026

                                                                                                                      undefined




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                               R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2354 of 2008


                       FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


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

                                    Approved for Reporting                        Yes             No

                       ==========================================================
                                               HARSHADKUMAR VAIKUTHRAM HALANI
                                                            Versus
                                                   STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR. SHIVAM N THAKKAR(10024) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                       MR.KARNA H DHOMSE(6684) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
                       MS SHRUTI PATHAK, 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 17.3.2008, passed by

the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Diyodar,

District : Banaskantha in Criminal Case No.551 of 2000, 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/2354/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026

undefined

such that the complainant filed a complaint to the effect that

the respondent-accused had borrowed Rs.1,75,000/- from the

appellant, that the respondent had given a cheque dated

24.04.2000 to repay the said amount drawn on the State

Bank of India, Bhabhar Branch in favour of the appellant,

that on presenting the said cheque in the account of the

Banaskantha District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.,

Diyodar, the same was dishonoured with the endorsement

'funds insufficient'; thereafter, he again presented the cheque

for clearance on 13.06.2000, but again the cheque was

dishonoured on 24.06.2000 with endorsement 'funds

insufficient'. Therefore, the complainant-appellant served a

legal notice dated 24.06.2000 demanding the amount of

cheque within 15 days from the receipt of the notice, but the

said notice was not accepted by the respondent; therefore, the complainant filed the complaint.

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

and the documents and 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/2354/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026

undefined

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

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/2354/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026

undefined

reasonable doubt that the accused had committed an offence

in question. It is, therefore, submitted that this Court may

allow this appeal by appreciating the evidence led before the

learned trial Court.

6.1 It is submitted that the learned trial Court has

erroneously held that the appellant-complainant has not

proved that he had lent Rs.1,75,000/- to the respondent, but

it is well settled principle of law that once the cheque is

issued by the accused, the presumption is always to the

effect that the cheque is issued to discharge the liability

towards the person in whose favour the cheque is issued and

therefore, it was not necessary for the appellant to prove

lending of money to the respondent. It is further submitted

that though the appellant has produced enough documentary evidence to show that the cheque was deposited by the

appellant and the same was returned with endorsement

`funds insufficient' and also that the notice was served by

registered post, the learned trial Court has recorded the

acquittal of the accused, which is against the evidence

produced on the record.

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/2354/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026

undefined

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.

7.1 It is further submitted by learned advocate for the

respondent/s that the complainant has not shown anything to

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

learned trial Court has, after considering the fact that the

complainant has stated in the complaint that the cheque was

issued of Shri Ram Traders, Diyodar Branch, whereas the

account number shown at Exh.57 is of Shri Ram Traders,

Bhabhar, that except oral evidence, no other documentary evidence is produced to prove as to why the cheque was

deposited, when the same was dishonoured etc., acquitted the

respondent-accused. 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/2354/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026

undefined

the Court :

8.1 The trial Court has taken into consideration the

fact that the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act has

been filed against the Proprietor of Shri Ram Traders,

Diyodar. It is a matter of record that the account, from

which the said cheque was given, was of Shri Ram Traders,

Bhabar. The complainant has examined P.W.7 - Naranbhai

Ravjibhai Chauhan, vide Exh.56, who was the Branch

Manager at State Bank of India, Bhabhar. In his deposition,

he has stated that in the bank, the accused - Vaikunthram

Chunilal Thakkar had Current Account No.71251 and the

said account was in the name of Shri Ram Traders, Bhabhar

and the abstract of account that he had provided was of Shri

Ram Traders, Bhabhar. Whereas, in his cross-examination, he had stated that he is not aware whether the abstract of

account which he has produced is of Shri Ram Traders

Bhabhar or Diyodar.

It is the case of the complainant that the accused

is a Proprietor of Shri Ram Traders, Diyodar and Shri Ram

Traders, Bhabhar, but the fact remains that the present

complaint has been filed specifically against the Proprietor of

Shri Ram Traders, Diyodar. The complainant has not been

able to prove that the said account is of Shri Ram Traders,

Diyodar. Therefore, the Magistrate Court has rightly acquitted

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/2354/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026

undefined

the accused of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act.

8.2 Moreover, the complainant has also not been able

to prove the fact that he had given soft loan to the accused

in March, 2000. It was the case of the accused that they

had not received any amount from the complainant. The

complainant has miserably failed to prove the fact that he

had handed over the said amount by March, 2000.

8.3 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.

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/2354/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026

undefined

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 law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

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.

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,

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/2354/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/01/2026

undefined

accordingly. Record & Proceedings be remitted to the

concerned trial Court forthwith.

(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J) SRILATHA