The court granted leave to appeal based on improper appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court under the NI Act.

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 15.02.2025 passed by the learned 38^th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, N.I. Court No. 35, Ahmedabad City (hereinafter referred to as the “learned Trial Court”) in Criminal Case No. 45426/2022, 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 Ms. Reshma Mutha for learned advocate Mr. Parth Bhatt for the applicant and learned APP Mr. Pranav Dhagat for the respondent State.

3. Learned advocate Ms Reshma Mutha for learned advocate Mr. Parth Bhatt for the applicant submits that the applicant is a non-banking finance company and the respondent no. 2 had taken a loan from the applicant firm. A Loan Agreement No. NHL/BRVL/1019/750236 was executed and towards the outstanding amount, the respondent no. 2 had issued cheque no. 938061 dated 08.03.2022 for Rs. 3,80,05,000/- from his account with IndusInd Bank, Bandra Branch. The cheque was deposited by the applicant in their account with HDFC Bank, Navrangpura Ahmedabad Branch but the cheque returned unpaid with the endorsement “Account Freezed Blocked”. The demand statutory notice was given which was duly served to the respondent no. 2 but the respondent no. 2 did not repay the amount within the stipulated period and hence, the applicant filed the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act before the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad which came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 45426/2022. The respondent no. 2 was duly served with the summons and he appeared before the learned Trial Court and after his plea was recorded at Exh. 7, the applicant produced the oral and documentary evidences in support of his case. Learned advocate submits that the affidavit of examination in chief was produced at Exh. 4, the loan closure statement at Exh. 14 and the statement of account at Exh. 15. Learned advocate further submits that the applicant had proved that the loan was taken and the applicant had filed the case against the respondent no. 2 as he was the proprietor of Agrim Impex. Learned advocate Ms. Reshma Mutha submits that the respondent no. 2 had produced zerox copy of the partnership deed which was not exhibited and had stated that the partnership firm was not joined as party to the proceeding and considering the unexhibited documents, the learned Trial Court was pleased to pass the impugned judgement and order of acquittal. Learned advocate submits that the issue has now been squarely covered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Dhanasingh Prabhu Vs.

Chandrasekar and Anr. reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1419 and it was the case of the applicant that the respondent no. 2 had taken the loan and towards the outstanding amount, the cheque in question was given. Learned advocate submits that the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the documents in proper perspective and the applicant has a good case on merits and the application seeking leave to appeal must be granted.

4. Learned APP Mr. Rohan Shah 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 th