MEHUL MUKUNDBHAI SONI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Paresh M. Modi, learned advocate for the applicant - original complainant and Mr. M.B. Rana, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 - original accused.

(2.) This application is filed seeking leave to appeal challenging the judgment and order dtd. 30/9/2022 passed in Criminal Case No.481 of 2022 by the learned 9 th Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur. By the said judgment and order, learned Magistrate has proceeded to record the order of acquittal of the present respondent No.2 - original accused for the offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(3.) Mr. Modi, learned advocate for the applicant has placed on record the paper book of the relevant documents. At the outset, he has invited attention of this Court to the findings and reasons recorded by the learned Magistrate. He has submitted that the learned trial Court has wrongly shifted the burden upon the complainant to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. He has further submitted that that learned trial Court ought to have appreciated the presumption drawn in favour of the complainant under Ss. 118A and 139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, once the signatures on the disputed cheques were not denied by the accused. He submitted that merely because the plausible explanation has been offered by the accused by leading a false story of transaction of car entered upon with the complainant and the failure of the complainant to transfer the documents of the car to the accused, the same could not be accepted as probable defence in absence of any cogent material being brought on record by the accused. The reasons for instructions of stop payment of cheques being given by the accused, in absence of any cogent material, cannot be treated as a probable defence. He, therefore, urged this Court to grant leave to appeal.