The court emphasized the necessity for proper appreciation of evidence in business transactions under the Negotiable Instrument Act, leading to the granting of leave to appeal against acquittal.

ORDER :

(S. V. PINTO, J.)

1. The present application is filed by the applicant – original complainant under Section 419(4) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) seeking leave to file an appeal against the order dated 15.07.2024 passed by the learned 18^th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, NI Court No. 34, Ahmedabad City (hereinafter referred to as the “learned Trial Court”) in Criminal Case No. 92429 of 2019, 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. Learned advocate Mr. Virat Popat for the applicant has submitted that the applicant and the respondent nos. 2 to 4 had business dealing and the applicant had sent iron plates worth Rs. 65,40,500/- on different dates and the account between them was maintained against the total outstanding of Rs. 3,42,38,856/-, 13 cheques were issued by the respondents towards discharge of the legally enforceable debt and while the prosecution under the provision of Section 138 of the NI Act was filed, an amount of Rs. 2,90,38,856/- was due, against which the cheques in question of different amounts were issued. The applicant deposited the cheques as per the requirement and the cheques returned unpaid. The demand statutory notice was given and it was duly served to the respondent nos. 2 to 4 but the amount was not paid and an evasive reply was given. The applicant filed the complaint before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad City and produced all the documentary evidences including the invoices and the delivery challans but the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the same in proper perspective. The learned Trial Court has not considered that the iron plates and steel plates are the same and merely because in the affidavit of examination-in-chief, the goods were shown as iron plates and the bills refer to steel plates, the learned Trial Court has passed the impugned judgement and order of acquittal. Moreover, as the person who deposed on behalf of the applicant did not have personal knowledge of the transaction, the learned Trial Court has not believed the same. Learned advocate submits that the person who had deposed was authorized and had knowledge on the basis of the documentary evidence but the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the same in proper perspective. Moreover, during the proceedings, some amount was paid in the proceedings before the NCLT and hence, the learned Trial Court has concluded that the legally enforceable debt, as mentioned by the applicant, was not the same. Learned advocate further submits that the applicant has a good case on merits and all the documentary evidences have not been properly appreciated and discussed by the learned Trial Court in the impugned judgement and order. Moreover, in view of the judgement of the Apex Court in TRL Krosaki Refractories Ltd Vs. SMS Asia Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. reported in (2022) 7 SCC 612, the applicant had the authorization and knowledge about the dealing between the parties and hence, the leave to appeal must be allowed.

3. 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.

4. On perusal of the impugned judgement and order of the learned Trial Court and the paper book submitted on record and considering the submissions of the applicant, prima facie it appears that there was a genuine business transaction between the parties and the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective.

5. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in the considered opinion of this Court the application deserves consideration. Consequently, the application seeki