R/CR.MA/18902/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/06/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL) NO. 18902 of 2024 In F/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 18365 of 2024 ========================================================== RBL BANK LIMITED THRO HITESH PRABHATBHAI VADHIYA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: MR NAHUH H PATEL(10530) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS. SHIVAMI P. BRAHMAKSHATRIYA(6398) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MS. JIRGA JHAVERI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Date : 12/06/2025 ORAL ORDER 1. The present application is filed by the applicant – original complainant under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) seeking leave to file an appeal against the judgment and order dated 01.03.2024 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the “learned Trial Court”) in Criminal Case No. 107525 of 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 R/CR.MA/18902/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/06/2025 ‘the N I Act”). 1.1 The respondent No. 2 is hereinafter referred to as “the accused” as he 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 application as well as the impugned judgment and order and paper book filed by the applicant are as under: 2.1 The applicant filed a complaint against the accused under Section 138 of the Act, as the accused had taken a loan of 24,96,375/- at the rate of interest of 10.25% from ₹ the applicant Bank against Retail Warehouse Receipt Financial (WRF) with loan account/customer identification No.7928 and an agreement of 25,00,000/- was executed ₹ between the applicant and the accused on 09.05.2017. An amount of 11,64,251/- was due towards which the ₹ accused issued cheque No.036905 for the amount of 11,64,251/- dated 26.09.2018 from his account with ₹ Indian Bank, Mahesana. The applicant deposited the cheque on 28.09.2018 in bank RBL Bank Ltd, Viva Complex Branch, Ahmedabad and the cheque was dishonored and R/CR.MA/18902/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/06/2025 the reason mentioned in the return memo dated 01.10.2018 was “Funds Insufficient”. The applicant sent the statutory demand notice to the accused on 26.10.2018 which was duly served and an evasive reply was given by the accused on 03.11.2018 and no payment was made and hence the applicant filed the criminal complaint before the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad under Section 138 of the N I Act, 1881 which was registered as Criminal Case no. 107525 of 2018. 2.2 The accused was served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and after his plea was recorded at exhibit 15 the evidence of the applicant was taken on record. The applicant and one other witness were examined on oath and 44 documentary evidences were produced in support of his case and after the closing pursis was filed, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded wherein the accused denied all allegations levelled against him and stated that a false complaint has been filed. The accused refused to step into R/CR.MA/18902/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/06/2025 the witness box or submit 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 N I Act. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the applicant has preferred the present application seeking leave to appeal mainly stating that the learned Trial Court has not properly interpreted the evidence and has misread the evidence and the impugned judgment is perverse, erroneous and contrary to law. 4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Nahuh H. Patel appearing for the applicant, learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the respondent – State and learned advocate Ms. Shivami P. Brahmakshatriya appearing for the respondent No.2. 5. Learned Advocate Mr. Nahush H. Patel for the applicant submits that the learned Trial Court has not appreciated that the applicant has successfully established that the cheque in question was issued by the accused from R/CR.MA/18902/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/06/2025 the bank account maintained by him. The applicant has proved that the cheque was written by the accused and it was dishonoured and as the applicant is the holder in due course of the cheque in question the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the N I Act is to be drawn in favour of the applicant. The learned Trial Court has not appreciated the provisions of Section 118 and 138 of the NI Act in proper perspective. The accused had failed to rebut the presumption and hence the judgement and order of acquittal is bad in law and the leave to appeal must be granted. 6. Learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the respondent – State and learned advocate Ms. Shivami P. Brahmakshatriya appearing for the respondent No.2 have jointly submitted that the learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence in detail in light of the citations referred to in the judgement and has passed the judgement and order of acquittal which is proper and no interference is required and hence the application for leave to appeal must be rejected. Page 5 of 6 R/CR.MA/18902/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/06/2025 7. Considering the submissions of learned advocate for the applicant as also the impugned judgement and order and the paper book produced by the learned advocate for the applicant on record the financial transaction between the parties has been proved and there is an admission of the respondent that pursuant to the NCLT Recovery Proceedings some amount is due. Prima facie it appears that the documents on record have not been appreciated by the learned Trial Court in proper perspective and the application seeking leave to appeal requires consideration. 8. Consequently, the application is allowed and disposed of accordingly. (S. V. PINTO,J) VASIM S. SAIYED Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 12/06/2025 15:57:38