A leave to appeal was granted as the trial court's acquittal was based on a misinterpretation of evidence regarding a financial transaction and cheque dishonor.

ORDER :

S.V. PINTO, J.

1. The present application is filed by the applicant – original complainant under Section 378(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking leave to file an appeal against the judgement and order dated 01.06.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Halol (hereinafter referred to as the “learned Trial Court”) in Criminal Case No. 551/2020, 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 NI Act” for short).

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Darshan Dave for the applicant and learned APP Ms. Dhwani Tripathi for the respondent no. 2 – State.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Darshan Dave for the applicant submits that as per the case of the applicant, the applicant and the respondent no. 1 had business relations and they were to enter into a partnership business for which the partnership deed was executed which is produced at Exh. 14 and the applicant had given an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-, Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/-, in all Rs. 5 lakhs to the respondent no. 1. That the respondent no. 1 did not start the business as per the partnership deed and hence, the amount was demanded by the applicant towards which the cheque in question of Rs. 5 lakhs was issued by the respondent no. 1. The cheque was deposited by the applicant in his account and the same returned unpaid with the endorsement “Insufficient Funds” and thereafter, the applicant gave the statutory demand notice and the respondent no. 2 sent a false and evasive reply and did not pay the amount and hence, the applicant filed the criminal complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Halol. The evidence of the applicant was taken on record and the applicant has produced the partnership deed and other documents including the statement of accounts from the bank of the applicant and has also examined two other witnesses and proved his case beyond reasonable doubts but the learned Trial Court has misinterpreted the evidence and has concluded that it was a time barred debt. That in fact the defence regarding the time barred debt was not taken by the respondent no. 1 and the respondent no. 1 had entered into the witness box and has deposed on oath at Exh. 42, wherein, there is an admission regarding the financial transaction between the parties. The applicant has a good case on merits and merely because the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective, the impugned judgement and order of acquittal has been passed. Learned advocate urges this Court to grant the application for leave to appeal.

4. Learned APP Ms. Dhwani Tripathi 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.

5. On perusal of the impugned judgement and order of the learned Trial Court and considering the submissions of the applicant, prima facie it appears that there was a genuine business transaction between the parties and the issue requires consideration.

6. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case 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.