ORAL ORDER

1. Learned advocate Mr.Devansh Kakkad submits that contrary defence was raised by the respondent-accused that in the notice it is stated that Rs.50,000/- was borrowed and he repaid the amount with 10% interest i.e Rs.60,000/- and against which this cheque was issued which was misused for recovery of Rs.90,000/-

1.1. In the evidence lead before the learned trial court below Exh.38 the accused deposed that he borrowed an amount of Rs.60,000/- and with interest of 10% he hAd repaid that amount. In the cross-examination he admitted that his wife has filed complaint for recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- against the complainant and other person.

1.2. Learned advocate Mr.Devansh Kakkad submits that the accused has borrowed the money from number of persons and many complaints are filed under section 138 of the N.I.Act against him and one of the complainant namely Himanshubahi has preferred application for leave to prefer appeal being Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.8053 of 2024 as well as appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal wherein, this Court has observed as under:

“2.Learned advocate Mr.Ramanuj submits that, during the cross examination, the complainant has admitted that, wife of the respondent-accused namely Shaminben Aslambhai Shaikh has filed the criminal case for the offence punishable under section 504, 506(2) of Indian Penal Code and section 33 and 34 of Gujarat Money Lenders Act wherein the complainant herself has admitted that, husband used to borrow money from various persons including the present complainant and to repay the amount, the blank cheques were issued in favour of the lenders. Learned advocate Mr.Ramanuj submits that, contrary defence raised by the respondent-accused was believed by the learned trial court and acquitted the respondent-accused from the charges.”

1.3. Learned advocate Mr.Devansh Kakkad submits that the respondent-accused is having tendency to borrow amount from number of persons and thereafter to file false complaint under the Gujarat Money Lenders Act.

1.4. Learned advocate Mr.Devansh Kakkad submits that no cogent reason is assigned by the learned trial court for not believing the case of complainant though the signature on the cheque is not disputed neither the agreement which is stated to have been executed for borrowing the amount of Rs.50,000/- was produced.

2. Considering the submissions, this Court deems it fit to allow this application for seeking leave to prefer an appeal. Hence, present application is allowed. Leave to prefer an appeal is granted.

ORDER IN R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1302 of 2024

1. The appeal is admitted. Learned APP Mr.Mehta waives service of notice of admission on behalf of the respondent- State and Learned advocate Mr.Nayan Shukla waives service of notice of admission on behalf of the respondent-accused.

2. Record and Proceedings shall be called for.

3. This matter be heard with Criminal Appeal No. 1059 of

2024.

(M. K. THAKKER,J)

ARCHANA S. PILLAI