R/CR.MA/19460/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL) NO. 19460 of 2025 In F/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 37473 of 2025 ========================================================== PRAVINBHAI ASHOKBHAI MALI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: MR CHAITANYA S JOSHI(5927) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR. ADITYA JADEJA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Date : 23/09/2025 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 09.07.2025 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Criminal Appeal No. 519/2023, 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 Mr. Chaitanya Joshi for the applicant and learned APP Mr. Aditya Jadeja for the respondent State. Page 1 of 5 R/CR.MA/19460/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2025 3. Learned advocate Mr. Chaitanya Joshi for the applicant submits that the applicant and the respondent no. 2 were known to each other and they were friends and the respondent no. 2 was in need of some finance and the applicant had advanced an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- as a hand loan to the respondent no. 2. The respondent no. 2 had issued cheque no. 000053 dated 04.11.2018 for Rs. 3,00,000/- from his account with HDFC Bank, Halol Branch. The applicant deposited the cheque in his account with Baroda Gujarat Gramin Bank / Bank of Baroda but the cheque returned unpaid with the endorsement “Other Reason”. The demand statutory notice was given which was duly served to the respondent no. 2 but the amount was not repaid within the stipulated period and hence, the applicant filed the Criminal Case under Section 138 of the NI Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara which came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 6866/2019. The learned Trial Court took cognizance of the offence and the applicant filed his examination in chief at Exh. 4 and produced five documentary evidence in support of his case. Page 2 of 5 R/CR.MA/19460/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2025 After the closing pursis was filed by the learned advocate for the applicant, the further statement of the respondent no. 2 was recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the accused did not examine any witness but produced two documentary evidence in support of his case. After the arguments of learned advocates for both the parties were heard, the learned 17th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara was pleased to convict the respondent no. 2 for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced the respondent no. 2 to simple imprisonment for a period of one year and further ordered the respondent no. 2 to pay an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the applicant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complainant within 30 days from the date of the order and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. 3.1 Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent no. 2 filed Criminal Appeal No. 519/2023 before the Sessions Court, Vadodara and after the arguments for both the parties, the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara p. 3 R/CR.MA/19460/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2025 was pleased to set aside the judgement and order of conviction and acquitted the respondent no. 2 from the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act mainly on the ground that the return memo does not bear the signature or seal of the Bank. Learned advocate submits that the learned Trial Court has considered all the documents produced on record and the presumption was in favour of the applicant and all the other ingredients of Section 138 of the NI Act were satisfied. Learned advocate submits that the applicant has a good case on merits and learned advocate urges this Court to allow the leave to appeal. 4. Learned APP Mr. Aditya Jadeja for the respondent State has submitted that the learned Sessions 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 arguments of the learned advocate for p. 4 R/CR.MA/19460/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/09/2025 the applicant as also both the judgements and orders, it appears that the same set of evidence have been appreciated by two different Courts in different manner and the issue requires consideration. 6. 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 for leave to appeal is granted and disposed off accordingly. (S. V. PINTO,J) VASIM S. SAIYED p. 5