IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 2136 of 2018 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-

===============================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No √

===============================================================

MAS FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED THROUGH SHRI UMESH RAMANBHAI GANDHI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

===============================================================

Appearance:

TIRTH NAYAK(8563) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR PRATIK B BAROT(3711) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2 MR PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1 ===============================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Date : 28/07/2025

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant – original complainant under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 18.04.2018 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot in Criminal Case No. 11532 of 2012 on 18.04.2018 , whereby the respondent No. 2 - original accused came to be acquitted from the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the N.I.Act”).

1.1 The parties are hereinafter referred to as “the complainant” and “the accused” as they 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 impugned judgment and order and paper book filed by the complainant are as under:

2.1 The complainant filed a complaint against the accused under Section 138 of the N.I.Act as the accused had taken a loan by executing a loan agreement No.191247. As per the loan agreement, the accused had to pay regular installments, but the same were not paid and the accused gave cheque No.163320 dated 31.08.2012 for Rs. 20,084/- from his account with Corporation Bank. The cheque was deposited in the bank of the complainant for clearing, but the same returned unpaid on 01.09.2012 with the endorsement “Today’s Opening Balance is Insufficient”. The complainant gave the statutory demand notice through his advocate on 24.09.2012, but the accused did not repay the amount, and hence, the complainant filed the complaint under Section 138 of the Act before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot which came to be registered as Criminal Case No.11532 of 2012.

2.2 The accused was duly served with the summons and appeared before the learned Trial Court and his plea was recorded at Exh.06 and the evidence of the complainant was taken on record. The complainant was examined on oath and 08 documentary evidences were produced in support of his case.

2.3 After the closing pursis was filed by the complainant, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded, wherein the accused stated that the facts in examination in chief and in the complaint are false and a false complaint has been filed. The accused stepped into the witness box and produced 23 payment receipts as documentary evidence and after the arguments of the learned advocates for both the parties were heard, by the impugned judgment and order, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused from the offence under Section 138 of the Act.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the complainant has preferred the present appeal mainly stating that the learned Trial Court has not properly interpreted the evidence and has misread the evidence and the impugned judgment and order is perverse, erroneous and contrary to law.

4. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Neel Vasant for learned advocate Mr. Tirth Nayak appearing for the appellant, learned APP Mr. Pranav Dhagat for the respondent No.01– State and learned advocate Mr. Pratik B. Barot for the respondent No.02. Perused the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and have re-appreciated the entire ev