DHARMESH MANIBHAI PATEL vs JIGAR H. SHAH

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2025 Supreme(GUJ) 614

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL)
NO. 712 of 2025 In F/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 699 of 2025 =============================================
DHARMESH MANIBHAI PATEL Versus JIGAR H. SHAH & ANR.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR.ADITYA J PANDYA(6991) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS DHWANI TRIPATHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3 =============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Date : 17/03/2025

Important Points

The failure of the Trial Court to appreciate documentary evidence warrants reconsideration of the acquittal in a cheque dishonor case.

Subject

Criminal Law - Negotiable Instruments

Headnote

(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Loan agreement - The applicant alleged that he lent Rs.13,75,000/- to respondent No.2, who issued a cheque for Rs.7,50,000/- that was returned unpaid due to 'stop payment' - The applicant's demand notice was met with an evasive reply from the respondent. (Paras 3, 4)

(B) Acquittal - The learned Trial Court acquitted the respondent, stating that all documents were appreciated properly - The applicant contended that the Trial Court failed to consider the evidence adequately. (Paras 3, 5)

Facts of the case:
The applicant provided a loan to the respondent, evidenced by cheques, but the cheque was dishonored. The applicant's appeal followed the acquittal of the respondent by the Trial Court.

Findings of Court:
The Court found that the Trial Court did not appreciate the documentary evidence properly, warranting further consideration of the case.

Issues: The main issue was whether the Trial Court adequately appreciated the evidence presented by the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the failure to appreciate documentary evidence necessitated a reconsideration of the case.

Result: Application allowed.

Petitioner Advocates:MR.ADITYA J PANDYA(6991) ,Respondent Advocate:

ORDER :

(S.V. PINTO, J.)

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Aditya J. Pandya for the applicant and learned APP Ms.Dhwani Tripathi for the respondent – State.

3. Learned advocate Mr.Aditya J. Pandya for the applicant states that the applicant and the respondent No.2 were known to each other and it is the case of the applicant that he had given a loan of Rs.13,75,000/- to the respondent No.2 on various dates during the year 2006-2007, towards which, the respondent No.2 gave cheque No.098079 dated 19.02.2008 for an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- from his account with the Kheralu Nagarik Sahakari Bank Ltd., C.G.Road Branch and on depositing the said cheque by the applicant in his account with the State bank of India, Khamasa Branch, the same has returned unpaid with endorsement “stop payment”. The applicant had given demand notice to the respondent No.2 but the respondent No.2 had given evasive reply to the said notice. The applicant filed criminal case before the Court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad. After the evidence of the applicant was taken on record, the learned 18^th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Negotiable Instrument Act Court No.34, Ahmedabad City was pleased to acquit the respondent No.2 by the impugned judgment and order dated 06.11.2024. Learned advocate further submits that the evidence of the applicant was taken on record and the applicant had produced copy of ledger account of the respondent No.2, in which, the amount is shown at Exh.21 and also confirmation of the statement has been produced but the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the documents and the learned Trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order, has acquitted the applicant. Learned advocate further submits that the amount was given tot the respondent No.2 through cheques on various dates and the details have been produced in the form of statement from The Bhuj Mercantile Co-op. Bank Ltd., Mithakhali Six Roads Branch. That the applicant has a good case on merits, and therefore, the present leave to appeal may be allowed.

4. Learned APP Ms. Dhwani Tripathi for the respondent No.2 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 therefore, 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 documentary evidence in proper perspective, and hence, the present application requires consideration and accordingly, is allowed.