LAWS(GJH)-2026-1-87

MANOJKUMAR JIVANLAL PRAJAPATI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On January 19, 2026
Manojkumar Jivanlal Prajapati Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dtd. 7/2/2009, passed by the learned 10th Additional Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surat in Criminal Case No.944 of 2003, for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the appellant original complainant has preferred this appeal under Sec. 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code").

(2.) The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are such that as there were friendly relations between the complainant Manojkumar Jivanlal Prajapati and the accused Uttambhai Somabhai Patel and the accused was in need of money, he took Rs.4,00,000.00 on different dates from the complainant; the accused did not repay the same inspite of repeated reminders; the accused gave a cheque of Rs.50,000.00 dtd. 30/4/2003, which was presented by the complainant in the bank on 1/5/2003, but the said cheque was returned with the endorsement 'insufficient funds'; that the accused assured the complainant to deposit the cheque again; and that after such assurance that it will be cleared, the complainant again deposited the said cheque on 7/5/2003, which was returned with the endorsement 'insufficient funds' and again, on the assurance given by the accused, the complainant deposited the cheque again on 25/6/2003, but the same returned with the endorsement 'insufficient funds'. Therefore, the complainant sent a statutory notice to the accused through advocate, which was vaguely replied by the accused. Therefore, complaint was filed by the complainant as the accused did not repay the amount.

(3.) Considering the verification of the complainant and the documents, the complaint was registered, the accused was called for by serving the summons, the accused remained present before the Court, he was provided with the complaint and the documents. On recording the statement of the accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.