Dismissed

Vinayak Ganpati Pol v. Raosaheb Dhulgonda Patil and Anr.

Bombay HC22 Aug 2006APPLN/5269/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the single judge rejected the application for leave to file an appeal. The acquittal was based on failure to prove service of notice of demand, as the postman was not examined and the accused denied tender. The court held the finding was possible on record.

What did the court decide?

Application for leave to appeal rejected; original order of acquittal maintained.

Vinayak Ganpati Pol Vs Raosaheb Dhulgonda Patil and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

- 1 -

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5269 OF 2003

¶3

 Vinayak Ganpati Pol...Applicant

¶4

vs.

¶5

Raosaheb Dhulgonda Patil and anr....Respondents

¶6

Mr.Indrajeet Joshi for the Applicant

¶7

 Mr.P.R.Arjunwadkar for Respondent No.1.

¶8

 Mr.Rajesh More,A.P.P. for State

¶9

CORAM: A.S.OKA,J.
DATE : AUGUST 22, 2006.

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

 1. Heard Advocates for the parties. This Application for

¶12

 leave is filed by the complainant in a complaint under section
 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter
 referred to as the said Act of 1881). The order of acquittal
 has been passed on the ground that the complainant/Applicant
 has failed to prove the service of notice of demand.

¶13

 2. After having heard the Advocates for the parties, I find

¶14

 that no case is made out for grant of leave. Notice sent by
 the Applicant to the accused by registered post A.D. was
 returned with the endorsement of the Postman that the
 addressee was not accepting the same and therefore the same

¶15

 was being returned. The accused stepped into the witness box
 and denied that the Postman has never tendered the said notice
 to him. Evidence was led to show that there are three persons

¶16

- 2 -

¶17

by the same name in the village. The accused led evidence of
 a Clerk working in the bank who also deposed that there were
 three persons having the same name in the village. The
 Applicant/complainant failed to examine the Postman.
 Considering all these facts, the learned Judge came to the
 conclusion that the service of notice is not proved. The
 finding on this aspect is a possible finding which can be
 recorded on the basis of evidence on record. Hence, no case
 is made out for grant of leave. Application is rejected.

¶18

JUDGE

Vinayak Ganpati Pol v. Raosaheb Dhulgonda Patil and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinayak Ganpati Pol v. Raosaheb Dhulgonda Patil and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivaji Babu Chavan Vs Pandurang Babu Cahvan and Anr.

Sanjay Madhav Athavale Vs Gupta Enterprises and Ors.

Shantilal R. Shah Vs Hemlata Rassiklal Shah and Ors.

Sharad Vinayak Bhave Vs Manoj Trymbakrao Wankhede and Anr.

Mr. Michael Abreo Vs Jayesh N. Dhavud and Anr.

Riyaj Allisaheb Patil Vs Prakash Narsing Moholkar and Ors.