Back
2025 Supreme(GUJ) 540
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL)
NO. 5033 of 2025 In F/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 9053 of 2025 =============================================
VIPUL MAVJIBHAI PANJARI PROP. OF ANNAPURNA SEA FOODS Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR DHANRAJ KHOSLA, ADVOCATE for MR DIGANT B KAKKAD, ADVOCATE (6523) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR UTKARSH SHARMA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 =============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Date : 25/03/2025
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Negotiable Instruments
Headnote
(B) Acquittal - Standard of proof - The court emphasized that the appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence is crucial in determining the merits of the case. (Para 5)
Facts of the case:
The applicant supplied fishery products to the respondent, who issued a cheque for outstanding dues. The applicant claimed the cheque represented a legally enforceable debt, but the Trial Court acquitted the respondent.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence properly, warranting consideration of the application for leave to appeal.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Trial Court properly appreciated the evidence presented regarding the cheque and the outstanding dues.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the proper appreciation of evidence is essential in cases involving financial transactions and debts, and the failure to do so necessitates a review of the acquittal.
Result: Application for leave to appeal is allowed.
ORDER :
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Dhanraj Khosla for learned advocate Mr. Digant B. Kakkad for the applicant and learned APP Mr.Utkarsh Sharma 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 04.02.2025 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Porbandar (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Criminal Case No. 4223 of 2016.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Dhanraj Khosla for learned advocate Mr. Digant B. Kakkad for the applicant submits that the applicant and the respondent No.2 were in the business of fish and the applicant was supplying fishery products to the respondent No.2 as per his requirement. That the account was settled and an amount of Rs.15,72,000/- was outstanding, towards which, the respondent No.2 had issued cheque No.000162 dated 21.09.016 for an amount of Rs,15,72,000/- and the parties have also executed a Memorandum of Understanding, which is produced on record at Exh.45. The agreement was registered with Notary and the applicant has examined the Notary at Exh.44. The agreement stated that the cheque No.000162 for an amount of Rs.15,76,000/- was given by the respondent No.2 towards the above-mentioned outstanding dues. The applicant had proved the amount was a legally enforceable debt but the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the documents produced by the applicant in proper perspective and has acquitted the respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. That the document and the agreement were proved by the oral evidence of the Notary before whom the document was executed and registered. The applicant has a good case on merits, and therefore, the present leave to appeal may be allowed.
4. Learned APP Mr. Utkarsh Sharma 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.
