Gujarat High Court
Mohammadsafi Ishakbhai Belim vs State Of Gujarat on 4 July, 2025
Author: Umesh A. Trivedi
Bench: Umesh A. Trivedi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2600/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2600 of 2009
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI
======================================
Approved for Reporting No Yes
No
======================================
MOHAMMADSAFI ISHAKBHAI BELIM
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
======================================
Appearance:
MR HIMANISH J JAPEE for MR JV JAPEE(358) for the Appellant(s)
No. 1
MR MOIZ S. KURESHI, ADVOCATE for MR PREMAL R
JOSHI(1327) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
MS MEGHA CHITALIA, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
======================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI
Date : 04/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
[1.0] This is an Appeal filed by the appellant - original complainant under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') challenging the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Modasa dated Page 1 of 17 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 21:36:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2600/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined 06.05.2009 in Criminal Case No.640 of 2005 whereby respondent no.2 - accused came to be acquitted of the charge levelled against him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
[2.0] As per the case of the complainant he is dealing in sale of cattle feed in the name of M Trading Company as a proprietor thereof whereas respondent no.2 - accused is having poultry farm in the name of Palan Poultry Farm. It is further the case of the complainant that the complainant and respondent no.2 - accused are having business as also friendship relations. The complainant maintained an account as per the purchase made by respondent no.2 - accused of cattle feed on different dates. Respondent no.2 - accused used to deposit certain amount in his account. On settlement of account, it was found that there was an outstanding of Rs.1,76,360/- to be paid by the respondent no.2 - accused. Therefore, according to the case of the complainant, respondent no.2 - accused came with the cheque in the name of proprietorship firm i.e. M. Trading Company drawn on Sarvodaya Sahakari Bank Ltd., Modasa Branch of Rs.1,76,360/- dated 25.11.2004 bearing No.022437. The respondent no.2 - accused assured him of the cheque being honored, and therefore, he accepted the same. Since respondent no.2 - accused requested not to deposit the cheque and thereafter assured to pay the said amount in cash, at the relevant time, complainant did not present the cheque in the Bank for realization. Thereafter on outstanding amount being demanded, respondent no.2 - accused did not respond and Page 2 of 17 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 21:36:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2600/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined gave false excuses, and therefore, the complainant deposited the said cheque issued by respondent no.2 in his Bank on 14.03.2005 in the name of his firm, which is also maintained in the very same Bank i.e. Sarvodaya Sahakari Bank Ltd., Modasa Branch. It is further his case that when he deposited the cheque in his Bank, it was sent for realisation in the account of respondent no.2 - accused but it was returned unpaid because of insufficient fund, and therefore, the said cheque alongwith cheque return memo was issued to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant gave notice through his advocate on 16.03.2005 through Registered Post A.D. as also UPC. Both the notices were served upon respondent No.2 - accused on 29.03.2005. The respondent no.2 - accused gave evasive reply and on the contrary issued counter notice demanding outstanding amount. Since respondent no. 2- accused did not pay the amount of cheque within the stipulated period, complaint has come to be filed within limitation before the competent Court against the respondent no. 2 - accused for an offence punishable under Section 138 of 'the Act'.
[2.1] On summons being served upon respondent no.2 - accused, he appeared before the Court and he was provided with all the papers produced alongwith the complaint and thereafter his plea came to be recorded vide Exh.8 where he denied the charge and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the complainant examined himself to prove the case against the accused and produced and proved in all nine documents. Not only that respondent no.2 - accused has entered into the witness box and gave deposition before the Court, he has also produced reply, to the notice issued by the advocate of the Page 3 of 17 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 21:36:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2600/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined complainant and counter notice issued by him since complainant did not produce the same before the Court.
[2.2] On conclusion of recording evidence, further statement under Section 313 of 'the Code' of respondent no.2 - accused came to be recorded wherein he reiterated his innocence and stated that no such cheque, as claimed by the complainant, is ever issued by him. It is his case, in the further statement under Section 313 of 'the Code' , in the year 2002 when he was purchasing cattle feed from the complainant on credit basis, a signed cheque, which was given to him towards security, at that time is retained by him, and despite repeated demands, it was not given back. Therefore, the complainant, or through other, filled in the details in it and misused the signed cheque, which was given towards security as he purchased the goods on credit basis.
[2.3] Therefore, after hearing the learned advocates for the appearing parties, learned Magistrate has been pleased to acquit respondent no.2 - accused of the charges levelled against him for an offence punishable under Section 138 of 'the Act' by the aforesaid judgment and order of acquittal, which is under challenge before this Court.
[3.0] Mr. Himanish Japee, learned advocate for Mr. J.V. Japee, learned advocate for the appellant, vehemently submitted that as such the business transactions between the parties since years is not disputed by respondent no.2- accused. At the same time, according to his submission, issuance of cheque in question by respondent no.2- accused is Page 4 of 17 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 21:36:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2600/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined also not disputed. Hence, not only presumption of consideration as provided under Section 118 of 'the Act', as also presumption in respect of it being issued towards any debt or other liability as provided under Section 139 of 'the Act' is required to be raised, which learned Magistrate has failed to raise the presumption on the ground that it has been rebutted by the accused, and therefore, the burden shifts on the complainant. He has further submitted that even otherwise in absence of presumption also, since complainant has not only produced and proved audit report of the proprietorship concern, statement of account in respect of respondent no.2- accused maintaining his books of account where credit is shown to be an amount equivalent to the cheque amount being proof of proprietary concern existing, even on the date of issuance of cheque, which is disputed by the accused, without any material, it cannot be said that the presumption is rebutted by the accused. Therefore, he has submitted that in absence of even presumption, by the evidence led before the Court, not only existence of debt is proved, cheque came to be issued towards the same, which is returned unpaid and all other necessary formalities as provided under 'the Act' of issuance of notice, waiting for reply or payment, a complaint has come to be filed against respondent no.2 - accused within limitation, and therefore, he has submitted that there is no escape for respondent no.2 - accused from the punishment for an offence punishable under Section 138 of 'the Act'.
[3.1] He has further submitted that even respondent no.2
- accused has failed to rebut the presumption, which can be raised under Section 139 of 'the Act' even by preponderance Page 5 of 17 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 21:36:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2600/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined of probability, and therefore, once issuance of cheque in question is accepted, it has to be presumed that it is being issued towards legally enforceable debt or other liability. If that is so, when notice came to be issued within the time prescribed as also complaint is filed within time prescribed, offence under Section 138 of 'the Act' is said to have been proved, and therefore, the reasons assigned by the learned Judge to acquit respondent no.2 - accused of the charge punishable under Section 138 of 'the Act' is erroneous, and therefore, it is required to be interfered with by allowing the Appeal and convicting the accused for a suitable punishment as provided under Section 138 of 'the Act'.
[3.2] He has further submitted that though respondent no.2 - accused has claimed that the proprietary concern in whose name the cheque is issued is closed in the year 2002 and a new firm wherein complainant is one of the partner started the very same business where the accused is continuing the same with the new firm, however, the complainant has stated in his deposition that his proprietary concern in the name of M. Trading Company is still continuing, which is ignored by the learned Magistrate. In support of the fact that M. Trading Company is still existing, not only the audit report of that proprietary concern issued by the Chartered Accountant as also income-tax return for the Assessment Year 2005-06 showing profit from the business is produced and proved at Exh.50 alongwith the audit report, it cannot be said that defence raised by the accused that proprietary concern is closed since 2002, and therefore, issuance of cheque in question in the year 2005 in the name of proprietary concern Page 6 of 17 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 21:36:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2600/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined has no substance. Therefore, it cannot be said that respondent no.2 - accused has rebutted the presumption, and therefore, burden shifts on the complainant to show legally existing debt and any other liability, and therefore, he has submitted that this acquittal appeal be allowed and respondent no.2 - accused be convicted for an offence punishable under Section 138 of 'the Act' and suitably be punished.
[4.0] As against that, Mr. Moiz S. Qureshi, learned advocate for Mr. Premal Joshi, learned advocate for respondent no.2 - accused vehemently submitted that not only the judgment and order of acquittal requires no interference even while dismissing the Appeal, the complainant is required to be imposed cost for producing and pleading false case against respondent no.2 - accused.
[4.1] Drawing attention of the Court to the cheque in question, Exh.20, there appears no stamp of any sort of the bank, cheque having been received alongwith pay-in-slip Exh.21 as claimed by the complainant, and therefore, he has submitted that whole basis of the case filed under Section 138 of 'the Act' is false. He has further submitted that notice Exh.25 claimed to have been issued by the advocate on behalf of the complainant reflecting complainant - Mohammadsafi Ishakbhai Belim as proprietor of M. Trading Company whose address is Alap Complex, College Road, Modasa, District Sabarkantha, not only in the notice but complaint Exh.1 also reflects the very same address, whereas audit report claimed to have been issued by the Chartered Accountant, without Page 7 of 17 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 21:36:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2600/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined Chartered Accountant being examined, Exh.50, page 111, reflects the address of M Trading Company (proprietor Mohammadsafi M. Belim) but address is of Marketyard, Modasa and again Permanent Account Number thereof is not mentioned in the audit report. The said audit report signed by partner of G.M. Shaikh and Company, Chartered Accountants dated 28.10.2005 it does not bear the signature of proprietor of M. Trading Company whose status is of an individual as reflected from Part A of the audit report at page 113.
[4.2] The income-tax return shown, attached with the audit report is not of M. Trading Company, proprietor thereof may be anyone, but it is in the name of an individual, which bears Permanent Account Number, which is not even that of proprietary concern. Apart from that, the net profit in the audit account shown of the proprietary concern is shown as an income of an individual Mohammadsafi M. Belim, who claims to be proprietor of M. Trading Company. However, from the audit report, it appears that, as submitted by the learned advocate for respondent no.2 - accused, proprietary concern as also the complainant Mohammadsafi Ishakbhai Belim are two individuals for the purpose of income-tax.
[4.3] Drawing attention of the Court to the cross examination made on behalf of respondent no.2 - accused of the complainant, wherein there is a clear cut admission of the complainant, saying it to be true that at Alap Complex, College Road, there is no office he possessed. If M. Trading Company proprietary concern, who is the payee of the cheque, if it is existing on the date of deposit of the cheque in the bank, Page 8 of 17 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 21:36:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2600/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined at which address it was issued is nowhere disclosed by the complainant. Even there is clear admission by him that at Alap Complex, College Road, he does not own any office, then how complaint reflected the very same address as also notice issued by him upon the accused also reflects the same address. He has further submitted that neither in the complaint, notice issued by him nor in the deposition, complainant has stated his account number of proprietary concern in which he deposited the cheque. Not only that, the pay-in-slip, Exh.21 also does not bear account number. Therefore, he has submitted that on all these evidence brought on record, by preponderance of probability, accused, as submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent, has rebutted the presumption and proved his case that signed cheque given as security is misused by complainant and body writing is admitted to be in different inks, though claimed to be filled and signed before the complainant, is not issued against any legally enforceable debt, as claimed because such proprietary concern is closed since the year 2002 and no cheque could have been issued in its name, that too, for business transaction for purchase of cattle feed from the complainant.
[4.4] In that circumstances, according to the submission of the learned advocate for respondent no.2 - accused, complainant has failed to prove his case against the accused, and therefore, learned Judge has assigned good reasons for recording the judgment and order of acquittal in favour of the accused, which could not be interfered with.
Page 9 of 17 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 21:36:38 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2600/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined [5.0] Having heard the learned advocates for the appearing parties and going through the impugned judgment and order, evidence led before the Court, documents produced and proved and verified from the Record and Proceedings of the case, let me examine whether the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by the learned Counsel is requiring any interference by this Court or not.
[5.1] Starting with the complaint, as very boldly claimed by the complainant in the cause title itself, he is doing business as proprietor of M. Trading Company as on the date of complaint at the address "Alap Complex, College Road, Modasa". Not only that, the audit report claimed by the complainant to be obtained by him for M. Trading Company, whose proprietor is Mohammadsafi Ishakbhai Belim bears different address, which is Marketyard, Modasa, which is dated 28.10.2005. The notice issued by the complainant upon respondent no.2 - accused dated 16.03.2005 again reflects address to be "Alap Complex, College Road, Modasa". Be that as it may, when there is a defence raised by the accused from the reply to the notice that M. Trading Company is closed down since 2002 at what address it was ever working or still working is not even attempted to be proved by the complainant. The case raised from the date of reply to the notice i.e. before filing of the even complaint against him and entering into a litigation, accused has pleaded that when in the year 2002, he was purchasing goods from the complainant, he used to give signed blank cheque for the purpose of security and when he makes payment in cash, he gets back the cheque given towards security. He has also stated in his reply to the notice Page 10 of 17 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 21:36:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2600/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined that different cheque numbers of different amount drawn on the Sarvodaya Sahakari Bank Ltd, Modasa were recollected from him, as stated above on payment of cash amount. He has further stated in the reply that the cheque in question remained to be recollected on payment of amount, which is misused by him. Not only that, in support of his claim that in the signed cheque, which was issued, he has stated that the body writing of the cheque is not filled in by him.
[5.2] Considering the said defence alongwith the admission of the complainant in the cross examination, the accused gave him the cheque in question at his Ashiyana State office. At the same time, he has admitted that at Alap Complex, College Road, no office is situated. Therefore, it is clear that the complainant is not coming out stating the truth before the Court when he gives different addresses at different places, more particularly, address where he doesn't have any office while filing the complaint before the Court, that shows that he has no regards for the truth. Not only that, he has admitted in his cross examination that ink with which cheque Exh. 20 is signed and the remaining body writing handwriting and ink there is a difference.
[5.3] Though he has denied that account pay under a cross line mentioned in the cheque handwriting therein is different form the rest of the body writing, the bare look reflects that not only name in whose favour cheque is drawn is in different handwriting and the amount mentioned in the words as also account payee mentioned "is also in different handwriting". It may not be that much important but when Page 11 of 17 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 21:36:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2600/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined complainant has very boldly claimed in his complaint, notice as also in the examination-in-chief that cheque in question is written and signed in his presence given to the complainant by the accused. If such cheque is issued by respondent no.2 - accused signed and written in his presence, it is for him to explain why it is written in different inks and different handwritings. So far as admission is concerned, his claim in the examination-in-chief on oath that it was written and signed by him proves to be wrong alongwith his other admission about different ink as also different handwriting over the body writing of the cheque. This is another example of the fact that the complainant has no regard for the truth.
[5.4] Coming to the audit report, Exh.50 claimed to be issued to M. Trading Company is again nothing but an afterthought as it has been obtained much before the complaint is filed and the income-tax return is also filed much later. At the same time, audit report is in the name of an individual M. Trading Company, may be proprietor Mohammadsafi M. Belim but that individual is different than the individual Mohammadsafi Ishakbhai Belim. However, the audit report does not reflect any PAN number of M. Trading Company, which is a different entity and individual under the Income-tax Act as claimed in the report, though proprietor may be Mohammadsafi Ishakbhai Belim but nowhere income-tax return in individual name of proprietary concern M. Trading and Company is shown to have been filed. The xerox copy of the income-tax return annexed with the audit report is in the name of an individual Mohammadsafi Ishakbhai Belim bearing Permanent Account Number, as reflected at page 137.
Page 12 of 17 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 21:36:38 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2600/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined Therefore, when prior to filing of a complaint, in reply to the notice, accused claimed that complainant has closed his business in the name of M. Trading Company proprietor being Mohammadsafi Ishakbhai Belim, he could have produced and proved, by not the documents created after even filing of the complaint but documents existing much prior thereto showing that it is still existing and doing business. Therefore, neither the audit report, Exh.50 nor the income-tax return submitted in the individual name of Mohammadsafi Ishakbhai Belim reflects true and correct facts in respect of M. Trading Company doing business as on the date of issuance of cheque as also deposit of the same in the bank. That supports even the defense raised by the accused not at the time of cross examination before the Court but from the date of reply filed to the notice issued by the complainant. When such defense is raised, he could have even shown the place of business of M. Trading Company to be at a particular place, as claimed. However, it would be pertinent to note that the address mentioned in the audit report of M. Trading Company proprietary concern to be Marketyard is the again address of an advocate of the complainant, who issued the notice to the accused under 'the Act'. Therefore, without saying anything further on the proved defense raised, since the date of notice, claim made by the complainant appear to be false.
[5.5] Furthermore, if the claim of the complainant is to be believed that he deposited the said cheque in Sarvodaya Cooperative Bank Ltd., Modasa, which returned unpaid, alongwith the cheque return memo and when he produced even pay-in-slip Exh.21 nowhere Bank account number in the Page 13 of 17 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 21:36:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2600/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined name of payee i.e. M. Trading Company is mentioned. So called cheque return memo, may be issued by the Bank, does not bear any account number of the payee i.e. M. Trading Company. The cheque return memo is addressed to whom again appears to be not mentioned by the Bank official but it appears to be written by someone other than the Bank persons. It is very clear from the cheque return memo Exh.22, which contains the handwriting, though only numerical numbers mentioned in the cheque return memo but its curves and everything reflects altogether different writer than the bank individual who has mentioned the cheque number and reason for return of the cheque as also amount mentioned in it. Over and above that, the account number of the payee i.e. M. Trading Company is nowhere mentioned starting from pay- in-slip, cheque return memo, notice issued under 'the Act'. The complaint and deposition before the Court is very crucial in this case since the cheque, which is presented through pay-in-slip bears nowhere any stamp of the bank in token of cheque being received for the purpose of realization. If cheque is drawn on different bank than the Bank wherein it is produced there would be stamp of the Bank on the cheque as also the pay-in- slip, a stamp of "clearing". If it is in the same Bank, there would be a stamp of transfer on the cheque as also pay-in-slip. Surprisingly, nowhere any bank stamp either it is presented for "clearing" or for "transfer", because account is in the very same Bank maintained by both, accused and complainant, finding place, which creates doubt about even genuineness of cheque being presented to the Bank for the purpose of realization.
Page 14 of 17 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 21:36:38 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2600/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined [5.6] Significantly, non examination of the Bank official by the complainant to prove the signature on the cheque return memo as also signature of the Bank official in the pay- in-slip, no witness is examined by the complainant in support of his case. If that bank official would have been examined, complainant might have been exposed as it does not bear any stamp of the Bank over pay-in-slip or even over the cheque, that it was never presented to the Bank for the purpose of realization. With the aforesaid conduct, as stated aforesaid, claim made by the complainant of cheque having been presented for the purpose of realization to his Bank where account number is not mentioned creates doubt as well.
[5.7] Over and above that, despite specific defence raised by the accused that M. Trading Company is closed down its business since 2002, there is no question of cheque being issued in the name of it, that too, in the year 2004 or depositing the same in the year 2005, it was the duty of the complainant to at least show prima facie existence of legally enforceable debt that the proprietary concern in the name of M. Trading Company was existing and doing business as on the date written on the cheque as also the date on which it is presented for the purpose of realization, which is 14.03.2005.
[5.8] Not only that, no statement of account as maintained by complainant as per the custom as also as per provisions of law is produced by the complainant to show that amount mentioned in the cheque was outstanding as on the date of issuance of cheque. When general ledger is produced showing account in the name of respondent no.2 - accused as Page 15 of 17 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 21:36:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2600/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined Palan Poultry farm, it is maintained in whose statement of accounts is missing even in that paper. It is also not a account maintained as per the rules and regulations or even exchanged between the parties ever.
[5.9] Further defense of the accused that M. Trading Company - proprietary concern is closed down since 2002 and complainant had joined partnership in the name of S.R. Poultry farm as a partner get supports from the evidence led before the Court. Even the complainant has admitted in his deposition, while denying that proprietary concern M. Trading Company is closed, he admits that he is a sleeping partner in that S.R Poultry Sales.
[5.10] The accused has also said that on closure of M. Trading Company proprietary concern of the complainant when he joined S.R. Poultry Sales accused continued business dealing with S.R. Poultry Sales. However, it is not the case of the complainant that it is an outstanding amount of S.R. Poultry Sales, and therefore, learned Magistrate has rightly concluded that presumption that may be available under Section 139 of 'the Act' is very well rebutted by respondent no.2 - accused not only by material evidence even by probability, based on preponderance of probability as well, and therefore, complainant has to show that as on the date of issuance of the cheque and /or on presentation of it, M. Trading Company was existing and doing business, as claimed by the complainant in this case. The complainant having failed to show that, learned Judge has rightly held that defense raised wherein it is also stated that signed cheque issued by him to Page 16 of 17 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 21:36:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/2600/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined the complainant as a business transaction as a security is misused by the complainant. Thus, it was incumbent upon the complainant to prove with reliable evidence that not only M. Trading Company was existing on the date of issuance of cheque or deposit of the same in the Bank, it was doing the business, as claimed by him. However, the complainant has miserably failed to even show that. Therefore, the learned trial Judge from recording the judgment and order of acquittal held that the complainant has failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt establishing that the cheque in question came to be issued by the accused towards any legally enforceable debt or other liability.
[6.0] Learned Magistrate has assigned very cogent and convincing reasons for recording an order of acquittal, which requires no interference by this Court, that too, while exercising power as appellate Court in this acquittal Appeal. Hence, this Appeal is hereby dismissed. Record and Proceedings, if any, received be sent immediately back to the trial Court.
(UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J.) siji Page 17 of 17 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Wed Jul 09 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 09 21:36:38 IST 2025