IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 620 of 2017 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

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

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

Approved for Reporting Yes No √

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

MAS FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED THRO' AUTHORIZED/LEGAL OFFICER Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

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

Appearance:

AMBRISH V JANI(8674) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR CHIRAG H PAREKH(5249) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2 MR UMANG H OZA(2440) 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 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhavnagar in Criminal Case No. 3455 of 2012 on 22.02.2017,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 of Rs.27,500/- by executing a loan agreement. As per the loan agreement, the accused had to pay regular installments, but the same were not paid and the accused gave cheque No.343536 dated 27.01.2012 for Rs.15,865/- from his account with Bhavnagar Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd, Krishnanagar, Bhavnagar Branch. The cheque was deposited in the bank of the complainant for clearing, but the same returned unpaid on 24.04.2012 with the endorsement “Account Closed”. The complainant gave the statutory demand notice through his advocate on 14.05.2012 which was duly served, 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, Bhavnagar which came to be registered as Criminal Case No.3455 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.6 and the evidence of the complainant was taken on record. The complainant and two other witnesses were examined on oath and 16 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 refused to step into the witness box but examined one witness in his defence and did not produce any documentary evidence on record. 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 for the appellant and learned APP for the respondent – State. Though served the respond