Allowed

Imtiyaz a. Shaikh v. Anil Kakde and Anr.

Bombay HC21 Aug 2007WP/1609/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed Criminal Writ Petitions challenging the Metropolitan Magistrate's rejection of applications to record original cheque documents for dishonour complaints. The Court held that while petitioner negligence should not go unchallenged, courts must not be hyper-technical in summary trials, especially since documents remained in the complainant's custody. The impugned orders were qu

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 3/5/2007 quashed; applications to place documents on record allowed; petitioner to deposit Rs.1,000 towards costs.

Imtiyaz a. Shaikh Vs Anil Kakde and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

Criminal Writ Petition No.1608 of 2007

¶4

With

¶5

Criminal Writ Petition No.1609 of 2007

Mr.Imtiyaz A. Shaikh

Applicant

Vs.

Mr.Anil Kakade & anr.

¶10

Respondents

¶11

Mr.Ramesh Dube-Patil i/b. M/s. Jay & Co. for petitioner.

¶12

Mr.Jayant Bodke and Mr.V.P.Shastri for resp.no.1.

¶13

Mr.D.R.More, APP for State.

¶14

CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.

August 21, 2007.

P.C.

. Heard.

. Rule. Respondents waive service. The learned

¶19

APP appears for the State. By consent, petitions are

¶20

taken up for final hearing forthwith.

¶21

Both the petitions raise a common grievance

¶22

i.e.	rejection	of	application	to	place	on	record the
original	docum	ents	in	C.C.No.108	3/SS/20	06	and C.C.
No.9238/SS	/2005	by	the trial	Court.		The	complaints

¶23

have been filed for dishonour of cheques in the

¶24

amount of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.80,000/- respectively.

¶25

¶26

. On or about 22/2/2007 an application was
submitted in both the complaints by the	co	mplainant
praying for leave to bring on record	the	original
documents like the dishonoured cheques,	legal	notice
issued and other relevant record. This	was	opposed
by the accused. The learned Magistrate	noted	that
the evidence of the complainant was	recorded	on
16/10/2006 and on the same day a list	of d	ocuments
was filed but without any documents alon	g with	the
same on behalf of the complainant. A	direction	was
given to the complainant to bring on	record	the
original documents and they were apprised	of the	same
on 16/10/2006 by the learned Magist	rate.	The
complainant was cross-examined on 17/1/2007	and	the
evidence closed pursis was filed by the	co	mplainant
on the next date. One month later	the	subject
applications came to be filed and on the	day whe	n the
statement of the accused under Section 31	3 of	Cr.P.C.

¶27

was recorded. By the impugned orders dated 3/5/2007

¶28

the applications came to be rejected.

¶29

. As directed by this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner has produced these original documents. It has been further submitted that the

¶30

¶31

Advocate	who was dealing	with the	co	mplaints,	inspite
of	instructions, did no	t take steps	to	bring	these
documents	on record and	due to the	neg	ligence o	f the
Advocate,	the party shou	ld not be	allow	ed to	suffer.
Admittedly	the documents	sought to be	pr	oduced	were
in the	custody of the	complainant or	his	Advocat	e all
along.	However, in the	complaint fi	led	under	Section
138	of the Negotiabl	e Instruments A	ct,	1881,	the
attitude	of the Courts	need not be	hy	per	technical
and	so long as the	documents sought	to	be	produced
are or	iginal documents and	relevant in	the	case,	some
leverage	will have to be	granted, may	be	by	levying
exemplary	costs and in	any case it is		a case	of
summary	trial. At the	same time the		accused	also
will	have to be prov	ided with an		opportunity	to

¶32

cross-examine the complainant further on submission

¶33

of these original documents.

¶34

.	Hence t	he petitions are	allowed	and the
impugned	orders	dated 3/5	/2007	passed	by	the learned
Metropolitan	Magi	strate,	30th	Court,	Kurla,	Mumbai
are hereby	quas	hed and	set	aside.	The	documents
sought to	be	produced	vide	the ap	plications	be taken
on record	subj	ect to	the	condi	tion	that the
petitioner	shall,	in each	of	the	compla	ints, deposit

¶35

¶36

an amount of	Rs.1,	000/-	by way	of costs.	This	cost
will be ap	propriat	ed	towards	the	Legal	Services
Authority Fund	of	the	concerned	Court.	Cost	amount
be deposited within two	weeks	with the	Mumbai
District Legal Services Au	thority.

¶37

. Rule made absolute accordingly.

Imtiyaz a. Shaikh v. Anil Kakde and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imtiyaz a. Shaikh v. Anil Kakde 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

Oswald Edwin D'Souza Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kashinath Eknath Kakade Vs Sundarabi Kashinath Kakade and Anr.

Ravindra Motiram Salve Vs Sharda Ravindra Salve and Ors.

Ajaykumar Ramjeet Gautam Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Imtiyaz a. Shaikh Vs Anil Kakde and Anr.

Pritish Nandy Communications Ltd. Vs Shrenik Shah and Anr.