HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
SVP
ASHOKBHAI DALICHANDJI CHHAJED – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
ORDER :
(S.V. PINTO, J.)
1. Heard learned advocate advocate Mr. P.P.Majmudar for the applicant and learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri and perused the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
2. The present application is filed by the applicant - original complainant under Section 419(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking leave to appeal against the judgement and order of acquittal dated 17.01.2025 passed by the learned 3rd Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Surat (hereinafter referred to as the trial Court, for short) in Criminal Case No. 49524 of 2018, whereby, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as NI Act, for short).
1.1 The respondent is hereinafter referred to as “the accused” as he stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity. 2. The brief facts culled out from the memo of the present appeal as well as the record and proceedings are as under:-
2.1 The applicant and respondent no.2 had business relations, and when respondent no.2 required financial assistance for personal purposes, he requested a loan from the app
The trial Court's dismissal of a cheque dishonor case due to non-prosecution was erroneous as it failed to appreciate the evidence, warranting leave to appeal.
The trial court's failure to properly appreciate evidence warrants reconsideration of the acquittal under Section 138 of the NI Act.
The court granted leave to appeal, emphasizing the importance of the applicant's diligence in prosecution despite the respondent's avoidance of service.
The trial court's acquittal was based on improper appreciation of evidence regarding the nature of the transaction, warranting leave to appeal.
The court emphasized the necessity for proper evaluation of evidence in cases involving acquittal under the Negotiable Instrument Act.
The trial court's acquittal was unjustified due to improper appreciation of evidence and failure to challenge party involvement, warranting leave to appeal.
The court found that the Trial Court misapprehended the limitation issue regarding the debt, which was within the legally enforceable period, warranting the granting of leave to appeal.
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act must be drawn in favor of the holder of the cheque, and misinterpretation of evidence by the Trial Court warrants leave to appeal.
The court found that the trial Court's failure to properly appreciate evidence justified granting leave to appeal against the acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.
The court emphasized the necessity for proper appreciation of evidence and documents in cases involving cheque dishonor under Section 138 of the NI Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.