Vijaybhai Bhanubhai Ramani Proprietor Of 'Hitarth Enterprize' vs. State Of Gujarat
Original PDF →Facts
The applicant, Vijaybhai Bhanubhai Ramani, proprietor of 'Hitarth Enterprize', seeks leave to appeal against an acquittal order dated 30.11.2024 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat. The original complaint was filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The applicant, engaged in the lace business, supplied goods to the respondent no. 2 on 05.02.2021 (worth Rs. 15,720/-) and 18.02.2021 (worth Rs. 37,440/-). A bill (No. HE/0479 dated 28.02.2021) for Rs. 55,818/- was issued. The respondent no. 2 issued a cheque for this amount, which was dishonored due to insufficient funds. Despite a statutory notice, the amount was not repaid. The applicant presented oral and documentary evidence, including GST registration, challans, and the bill, to prove the transaction. However, the learned Trial Court acquitted the respondent no. 2.
Held
The High Court, after considering the submissions and perusing the paper book and the acquittal judgment, prima facie found that the documents had not been properly appreciated in the correct perspective. The Court observed that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the application seeking leave to appeal deserved to be considered. Consequently, the High Court granted the application for leave to appeal. The reasoning suggests that the Trial Court's appreciation of evidence might have been flawed, warranting further examination in an appeal. The Court did not delve into the merits of the case beyond determining if leave to appeal should be granted.
Key Issues
1. Whether the learned Trial Court properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence presented by the applicant, particularly concerning the proof of goods purchased and the issuance of the cheque for the exact bill amount, as required under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881? Petitioner's Argument: The applicant argued that they had successfully proved the purchase of goods and the issuance of the cheque for the exact bill amount through oral testimony and documentary evidence, including GST registration, challans, and the bill. They contended that the respondent no. 2 did not rebut the presumption of liability and failed to present a plausible defense. The applicant asserted that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective, leading to an erroneous acquittal. Revenue's Argument: The learned APP for the State argued that the learned Trial Court had considered all the documents and evidence produced by the applicant and had passed the acquittal order in accordance with settled legal principles. Therefore, leave to appeal should not be granted.
Sections Cited
Section 138
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
The present application is filed by the applicant – original complainant seeking leave to file an appeal against the judgement and order dated 30.11.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat (hereinafter referred to as the “learned Trial Court”) in Criminal Case No. 835/2022, whereby, the learned Trial Court was pleased to acquit the respondent no. 2 from the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to “the NI Act” for short).
Heard learned advocate Mr. Rashesh Patel for learned advocate Mr. Suraj Shukla for the applicant and learned APP Ms. C.M. Shah for the respondent State. R/CR.MA/840/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025
Learned advocate Mr. Rashesh Patel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in the lace business and the respondent no. 2 was purchasing lace material from the applicant. The respondent no. 2 had purchased goods worth Rs. 15,720/- on 05.02.2021 and Rs. 37,440/- on 18.02.2021 and bill no. HE/0479 dated 28.02.2021 for Rs. 55,818/- was issued towards which the respondent no. 2 gave cheque no. 782648 dated 13.09.2021 for Rs. 55,818/- from his account with Varachha Cooperative Bank Ltd., Surat. The cheque was deposited by the applicant in his account with Bank of India, Katargam Branch, Surat but the cheque returned unpaid with the endorsement “Funds Insufficient”. 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 Judicial Magistrate, Surat which came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 835/2022. The respondent no. 2 was duly served with the summons and he appeared before the learned Trial R/CR.MA/840/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025 Court and after his plea was recorded, the applicant stepped into the witness box and deposed on oath at Exh. 4 and produced 9 documentary evidence in support of his case. Learned advocate submits that the applicant had produced the GST Registration Certificate at Exh. 9, Challans at Exhs. 10 and 11 by which the goods were supplied to the respondent no. 2 and Bill No. HE/0479 at Exh.
After the arguments of learned advocates for both the parties were heard, even though the respondent no. 2 did not rebut the presumption and did not put a plausible defence, the learned Trial Court was pleased to acquit the respondent no. 2 from the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. Learned advocate submits that the applicant had proved by oral and documentary evidence that the goods were purchased and the cheque was issued for the exact 6amount of the bill but the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in the proper perspective and the impugned judgement and order of acquittal came to be passed. Learned advocate submits that the applicant has a good case on merits and the application seeking leave to R/CR.MA/840/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025 appeal must be granted.
Learned APP Ms. C.M. 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.
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. (S. V. PINTO,J) VASIM S. SAIYED Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. 28/07/2025 17:47:55
Reproduced from the public record of the Gujarat High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.