In cheque bounce cases, the trial court must properly appreciate evidence, and acquittal cannot stand if prima facie evidence suggests otherwise.

ORAL ORDER

1. The present application is filed by the applicant – original complainant seeking leave to file an appeal against the judgement and order dated 03.04.2025 passed by the learned 2^nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadiad (hereinafter referred to as the “learned Trial Court”) in Criminal Case No. 5518/2023, whereby, the learned Trial Court was pleased to acquit the accused from the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to “the NI Act” for short).

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Darshit Brahmbhatt for the applicant and learned APP Mr. Pranav Dhagat for the respondent State.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Darshit Brahmbhatt for the applicant submits that the applicant is a Cooperative Society and had advanced a loan amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the respondent no. 2 on 17.10.2020 in the loan account no. A/867. Some of the amount was paid and towards the outstanding amount, the respondent no. 2 issued cheque no. 019591 dated 04.10.2023 for Rs. 1,98,000/- and cheque no. 019593 dated 05.10.2023 for Rs. 1,98,000/- from her account with Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank), Pij Road, Nadiad Branch. The applicant deposited the cheques in his account with Kheda Madhyastha Sahkari Bank, Nadiad Branch but both the cheques returned unpaid with the endorsement “Drawer Signature Differs”. The demand statutory notice was given which was duly served to the respondent no. 2 but the respondent no. 2 gave an evasive reply and did not pay the amount within the stipulated period and hence, the applicant filed the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadiad which came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 5518/2023. The respondent no. 2 was duly served with the summons and she appeared before the learned Trial Court and after her plea was recorded, the applicant produced the oral and documentary evidence on record including the loan application form at Exh. 7, promissory note at Exh. 8 and statement of loan account of the respondent no. 2 at Exh. 9 along with other documents. Learned advocate submits that no defence was raised by the respondent no. 2 and from the oral and documentary evidence, the legally enforceable due was proved by the applicant. The learned Trial Court came to a conclusion that as the endorsement on the cheque return memo was “Drawer Signature Differs”, no offence under Section 138 of the NI Act is made out and by the impugned judgement and order was pleased to acquit the respondent no. 2 from the offence under Seciton 138 of the NI Act. Learned advocate submits that in a catena of decisions, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that even if the signatures do not match on the cheque, the same would constitute an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. Learned advocate submits that the applicant has a good case on merits and the application seeking leave to appeal must be granted.

4. Learned APP Mr. Pranav Dhagat for the respondent State has submitted that the learned Trial Court has considered all the documents produced by the applicant and has also considered the evidence and has passed the impugned order of acquittal considering the settled principles of law and hence, the leave to appeal may not be granted.

5. Considering the submissions of learned advocate for the applicant as also on perusal of the paper book on record and the judgement and order of acquittal, prima facie, it appears that the documents have not been properly appreciated in proper perspective. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in the considered opinion of this Court the application deserves to be considered. Consequently, the application seeking leave to appeal is granted and disposed off accordingly.