Dismissed

Vishnu Rajram Raut v. Momin Tajuddin Abdul Karim and Anr.

Bombay HC24 Aug 2009APPLN/1513/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the applicant's application for leave to appeal against the acquittal of the respondent under Section 138 of the NI Act. The trial court found the applicant failed to prove the existence of a legal enforceable debt, noting unexplained double dates on the cheque.

What did the court decide?

Application for leave to file an appeal rejected; Criminal Appeal dismissed.

Vishnu Rajram Raut Vs Momin Tajuddin Abdul Karim and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

*** 1 ***

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1513 OF 2009

¶5

Vishnu Rajaram Raut ..... Applicant
 vs.
Momin Tajuddin A. Karim & Anr...... Respondents

¶6

Mr. A.P. Vanarse, Advocate for applicant.

¶7

Mr. Rajiv Singh h/f R.Satyanarayanan for Respondent No.1.
Mr. P.A. Pol, APP for State/respondent.

¶8

CORAM : SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J.

¶9

DATED : 24TH AUGUST, 2009.

¶10

PC :

¶11

1This application is filed for leave to file an Appeal to
challenge the Judgment and order dated 1st December, 2008
passed by the learned Magistrate acquitting the respondent
under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶12

2It has been held by the trial court that, the applicant
has failed to establish that the cheques in question was
issued towards legal enforceable debt. The applicant claims to
have given loans of various amounts to the respondent during
the period May 2000 to April, 2001 in repayment of which the
cheque in question of the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was given by

¶13

*** 2 ***

¶14

the respondent to him. Beyond making a statement in evidence
that the applicant had during aforesaid date given loans of
various amounts to the respondent, there is nothing brought on
record to show that such loans were given. Further, the trial
court has found that there are two dates written on the
cheque, one is of 9th May, 2000 and the other of 9th May, 2001.
There is no any explanation offered for the different dates on
the cheque in question. Perused the impugned judgment and
order, the learned Judge taken a reasonable and possible view
of the matter which does not warrant interference. Hence,
application for leave to file an appeal is rejected. In view
of rejection of the application, Criminal Appeal filed by the
applicant also stands dismissed.

Vishnu Rajram Raut v. Momin Tajuddin Abdul Karim and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnu Rajram Raut v. Momin Tajuddin Abdul Karim 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

Pandit Ramchandra Shelke Vs Sopan Ramchandra Shelke and Ors.

Mohd. Mustafa @ Kalim Mohd. Farukh Qureshi and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajendra Bojalwar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sitaram Shesha Shetty Vs Bhaskar Hande and Anr.

Fortis Financial Services Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vaishali Pundlik Dhumal and Anr. Vs Pundalik Shankar Dhumal and Anr.