The court emphasized the necessity for proper appreciation of evidence in cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, indicating that failure to do so can lead to reconsideration of acquittal.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Suraj B. Matieda 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. Suraj B. Matieda for the applicant submits that the applicant is manufacturer of tea and doing the business in the name and style of “Trusha Tea Marketing Pvt. Ltd.” and the respondent No.2 was the distributor of tea and had purchased tea goods to the tune of Rs.7,16,719/- from 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022, and thereafter, to the tune of Rs.1,09,555/- from 01.04.2022 to 23.06.2022. When the account was settled, an amount of Rs.1,05,257/- was outstanding, towards which, the respondent No.2 issued cheque No.000267 dated from his account with ICICI Bank, Madhav Complex, Godhara Branch and on depositing the said cheque by the applicant in his account with The Kalupur Commercial Cooperative Bank Ltd., Sanand Branch, the same has returned unpaid with the endorsement “Account Closed”. The applicant had given the demand statutory notice, towards which, evasive reply was given by 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, Sanand. The respondent No.2 appeared and after the evidence of the applicant was taken on record. At the end of trial, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sanand was pleased to acquit the respondent No.2 by the impugned judgment and order dated 21.01.2025. Learned advocate submits that the invoices including e-away bill and challan, by which, the tea goods was delivered to the respondent No.2 have been produced but the same have not been appreciated by the learned Trial Court in proper perspective. Moreover, in the reply to the notice, the respondent No.2 had admitted that he was the distributor of the company. Even though, the applicant has proved that there was legally enforceable debt outstanding from the respondent No.2, but 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.