Gujarat HC Permits Appeal Against Acquittal in ₹6L Cheque Bounce Case, Cites Improper Evidence Appreciation [Read Order]
The applicant argued that he had proven the existence of a legally enforceable debt through oral testimony, documentary evidence (including bank statements and income tax returns), and established his financial capacity.
![Gujarat HC Permits Appeal Against Acquittal in ₹6L Cheque Bounce Case, Cites Improper Evidence Appreciation [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/10/04/2093708-cheque-bounce-taxscan.webp "Gujarat HC Permits Appeal Against Acquittal in ₹6L Cheque Bounce Case, Cites Improper Evidence Appreciation [Read Order]")
In a recent ruling, the Gujarat High Court granted leave to appeal against an acquittal in a ₹6 lakh cheque bounce case, citing improper appreciation of evidence by the trial court.
The applicant, Ranchhodbhai N. Gambhava, filed the application seeking leave to challenge the 30.12.2024 judgment of the 3rd Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Banaskantha, which acquitted the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
The applicant contended that he had advanced ₹5 lakh and subsequently ₹1 lakh to the accused (Respondent No. 2). Towards the outstanding amount, the accused issued cheque no. 025595 dated 03.10.2023 for ₹6 lakh from his Union Bank of India account. Upon deposit, the cheque was returned unpaid due to "insufficient funds". Despite a statutory demand notice and an evasive reply from the accused, the complaint was filed.
The applicant argued that he had proven the existence of a legally enforceable debt through oral testimony, documentary evidence (including bank statements and income tax returns), and established his financial capacity. He asserted that the trial court erroneously acquitted the accused solely because the applicant did not specify the reason for the additional ₹1 lakh advance, despite all ingredients of Section 138 being satisfied.
The respondent State, represented by APP Ms. C.M. Shah, opposed the application, arguing that the trial court had properly considered all evidence and settled legal principles in passing the acquittal order.
The Division Bench of Justice S.V. Pinto observed that, prima facie, the trial court had not properly appreciated the evidence in its correct perspective. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, the Court held that the application deserved consideration. Consequently, the High Court granted leave to appeal and disposed of the application accordingly.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
