Dismissed

Ghyanshyam Vithal Kale v. Vishwanath Balasaheb Sawandkar

Bombay HC23 Jul 2009APPLN/1544/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant sought quashing of process issued under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging the complaint verification was cryptic. The Court held the verification disclosed all essential facts, distinguishing it from a case with non-application of mind, and dismissed the application.

What did the court decide?

The criminal applications seeking quashing of the order to issue process were dismissed; the orders finding no application of mind in the complaint were rejected.

Ghyanshyam Vithal Kale Vs Vishwanath Balasaheb Sawandkar — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶3

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶4

Court’s or Judge’s orders.

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.: 1544 OF 2009

¶6

Ghanshyam Vithal Kale

¶7

Versus

¶8

Vishwanath Balasaheb Sawandkar

¶9

¶10

Mr. M.M.Nerlikar, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. M.P.Kale, Advocate for the Respondent/ sole.

¶11

¶12

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.: 1545 OF 2009

¶13

Ghanshyam Vithal Kale Versus Champatrao Rambhau Tarwate. ***

¶14

Mr. M.M.Narlikar, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. S. B. Nandkhed, Advocate for Respondent/ sole.

¶15

¶16

Heard learned counsel extensively. By the

¶17

present application, issuance of process under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is sought to be quashed contending that the statement of oath (commonly called verification) is cryptic in nature, does not disclose the details and consequently there is no application of mind by the learned Judge. I have gone through the said statement, which is as under:

¶18

" शपथेवरििवेदि

¶19

¶20

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶22

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶23

Court’s or Judge’s orders.

¶24

पैसेमागणयासगेलोअसतातयािीमलाइंिियाबँक शाखापुणाातयाचा२,००,०००/- चेकिदला. तोमी माझयाखातयातजमाकेला. आरोपीचयाखातयातपैसे ऩसलयामुऴेतोपरतआला. तयािंतरमीविकलामाफात मागणीिोििसिदली. िोििसिमळालयावरआरोपीिे ऊतरिदले. परंतुचेकचेपैसेििदलयामुऴेमीतकार दाखलकेली."

¶25

Reading the statement, it is obvious it can be branded to be in a cryptic form. It discloses advance of amount of Rs.2 Lakhs, the demand and issuance of cheque for Rs.2 Lakhs in discharge of liability. It also indicate its deposition with the bank, its dishonour for want of sufficient funds, followed by a statutory notice through Advocate, then reply from the accused but no payment even after the notice and consequently the prosecution. Reading these details, it is difficult to digest that the order of learned Court is mechanical in nature, display non application of mind. The ingredients as indicated primarily under section 138, 141 of the Negotiable Instructions Act, could satisfactorily be carved out. The judgment in the matter of "Amarnath Baijnath Gupta and another V/s M/s

¶26

¶27

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶28

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶29

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶30

Court’s or Judge’s orders.

¶31

Mohini Organics Pvt. Ltd. and another, reported in 2009 CRI.L.J.995" by this Court, deals with a situation where the learned Judge has acted based on printed forms in which details of the cheque, name of the bank were filled in, the format was also kept ready and this Court found that order issuing process is passed without recording proper verification, liable to be set aside. The purpose of section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code is more than clear. The Magistrate has to be satisfied that offences are disclosed from the statement on oath and how the accused persons are responsible there for. These two ingredients, having gone through, the statement referred above, are coherently adhered by the learned Judge regarding the statement/ verification. Order does not require any inte4rference. Both the applications and dismissed.

¶32

[K. U. CHANDIWAL, J.]

¶33

Dated:23/07/2009. ans/1544

Ghyanshyam Vithal Kale v. Vishwanath Balasaheb Sawandkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghyanshyam Vithal Kale v. Vishwanath Balasaheb Sawandkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Digamber Kulkari Vs State of Mahjarashtra and 30 Others

Bhimabai Bhausing Ambhore. Vs Bapurao Babarao Khiste.

Savita Shivaji Vibhute and Ors. Vs Shivaji Trimbatappa Vibhute

Chandpasha Gulab Badnale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Babasaheb S/O. Sopan Gore Vs the State of Maharashtra

Suresh Jayram Pagare Vs the State of Mah