MEHTA NILESHKUMAR VISHNUPRASAD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant - original complainant under Sec. 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') against the judgment and the order passed by the learned 3rd Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mehsana (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Trial Court), in Criminal Case No. 3367 of 2005 on 18/10/2010, whereby, the learned Trial Court acquitted the respondent no.2 - accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the N.I.Act').

(2.) The relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under:

(3.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court, the appellant has preferred the present appeal mainly stating that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Learned Trial Court is absolutely bad, illegal and erroneous and deserves to be quashed and set aside. The judgment and order is against the weight of evidence on record and against the cardinal principles of law. The issues have not been properly dealt with by the learned Trial Court and the learned Trial Court has committed a serious error of law and has passed the impugned judgment acquitting the respondent no.2 and has wrongly made a presumption that the appellant may not have the financial capacity of Rs.2,00,000.00 that was advanced to the respondent no.2. The learned Trial Court has not considered that the respondent no.2 has changed his version and the respondent no.2 had clearly stated that the cheques were given to the complainant by one Vinodbhai who is the brother-in-law of the respondent no.2 and earlier had given a different version and the contradiction has not been considered by the learned Trial Court. The respondent no.2 has failed to show that if the cheques were stolen, he did not file any complaint against his brother-in-law Vinodbhai or the complainant and did not cancel the cheques or intimate the bank about the missing cheques but the learned Trial Court has not considered this aspect. The learned Trial Court has also wrongly acquitted the respondent no.2 on the ground that the appellant did not have any familiarity or friendship with the respondent no.2 and did not believe that the appellant would have advanced an amount of Rs.2,00,000.00 to the respondent no.2, and hence, the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court is illegal and is required to be quashed and set aside.