The court emphasized the importance of proper evidence assessment in dishonor of cheque cases, ruling that the benefit of doubt must be rigorously applied.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Rasesh H. Parikh for the applicant and learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the respondent –State.

2. By way of the present application, the applicant has prayed to grant leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 05.02.2025 passed by the learned 2^nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patan in Criminal Case No.616 of 2020.

3. Learned advocate Mr.Rasesh H. Parikh for the applicant submits that the applicant is in the business of getting succession certificate of the shares and in connection with the above, the respondent No.2 had business transaction with the applicant, and thereafter, the relation developed between both the parties. The respondent No.2 wanted to send her daughter abroad and as the respondent No.2 demanded Rs.10,00,000/- from the applicant, the applicant gave Rs.5,00,000/- from the account of “Khushbu Consultancy” and another Rs.5,00,000/- from his own account on 12.09.2019. That an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- given from “Khushbu Consultancy” was returned by RTGS on 05.06.2020 and the amount given from the account of the applicant was not returned and on demanding the same, the respondent No.2 issued cheque No. 455855 dated 15.06.2020 from her account with Corporation Bank, Alkapuri Branch, Vadodara. On depositing the said cheque by the applicant in his account with The Chanasma Nagarik Sahakari Bank Ltd., Patan Branch, the same has returned unpaid with the endorsement “Account Blocked”. The applicant had given the demand statutory notice to the respondent No.2 and the amount was not paid by the respondent No.2, hence, the applicant filed a criminal case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act before the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patan. The respondent No.2 appeared and after the evidence of the applicant was taken on record. At the end of trial, the learned 2^nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patan was pleased to acquit the respondent No.2 by the impugned judgment and order dated 05.02.2025 by giving benefit of doubt that the amount was repaid by the respondent No.2 to the applicant. Learned advocate submits that in act, there were two transactions and both the transactions are of Rs.5,00,000/- each and the amount of one transaction i.e. Khushbu Consultancy was repaid and the amount, which was given by the applicant from his account, has not been repaid. The amount was given by cheques to the respondent No.2 and the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the same and has acquitted the respondent No.2. The applicant has a good case on merits, and therefore, the present leave to appeal may be allowed.

4. Learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the respondent – State submits that the learned Trial Court has appreciated all the documents in proper perspective and therefore, no interference of this Court is required in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court and the present application may be rejected.

5. Having heard advocates for the respective parties and considering the submission made by both the parties as also the documentary evidence produced by the applicant, prima-facie, it appears that the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective, and hence, the present application requires consideration and accordingly, is allowed.