Allowed

Rajkumar Hiralal Dhotre v. Dattatraya Murlidhar Vaidhya and Anr.

Bombay HC2 Sept 2010APPLN/522/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court condoned a seven-day delay in filing a criminal appeal due to the applicant's illness. The court allowed leave to appeal against an acquittal, citing the lower court's failure to properly apply the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

What did the court decide?

The court condoned the delay in filing the appeal and granted leave to appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC.

Rajkumar Hiralal Dhotre Vs Dattatraya Murlidhar Vaidhya and… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.522 OF 2010 WITH

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.521 OF 2010

¶5

Rajkumar Hiralal Dhotre

¶6

..APPLICANT

¶7

-VERSUS-

¶8

Dattatraya Murlidhar Vaidhya and another

¶9

..RESPONDENTS

¶10

Mr. B.S. Shinde, advocate for applicant. Mr. V. B. Munat, advocate for respondent no.1. Mrs. S.D. Shelke, A.P.P. for respondent no.2.

¶11

(CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 2nd September, 2010.

¶12

PER COURT :

¶13

Heard learned counsel and learned A.P.P.

¶14

There is delay of 7 days in filing the criminal appeal.

¶15

The applicant is the original complainant. He alleges that the delay of 7 days was caused due to his intervening illness. He could not,

¶16

therefore, immediately approach his Advocate for filing of the appeal. Considering the explanation given in the application, the delay stands condoned. The application is allowed.

¶17

Another application filed by the applicant is for leave to

¶18

appeal under Section 378(4) of Criminal Procedure Code. On consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel and the

¶19

¶20

learned A.P.P., I find that acquittal of the respondent no.1 has been rendered in S.T.C. No.7518/2005 by the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.) for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act mainly for the reason that he failed to prove that he had enough resources available with him to advance an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent no.1 by way of loan. It appears that the issuance of cheque by the respondent no.1 is not in dispute. The learned Magistrate observed that the applicant could not establish his ability to give amount shown under the disputed cheque (Exh.50) to the respondent no.1. The case of the applicant was that such amount was required by the respondent no.1 for expansion of his transportation business. The respondent no.1 did not reply the demand notice. The presumption available under the relevant provisions, more particularly, under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, seems to have been improperly overlooked.

¶21

Considering these aspects, there is, prima facie, case made out for the purpose of allowing leave to appeal. The application is, therefore, disposed of.

¶22

( V.R.KINGAONKAR)

¶23

gas/cri522.10

¶24

JUDGE

Rajkumar Hiralal Dhotre v. Dattatraya Murlidhar Vaidhya and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajkumar Hiralal Dhotre v. Dattatraya Murlidhar Vaidhya 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

Premchand Bansilal Kucheria Vs Shivdas Sonajikokane and Anr.

State of Mah Vs Ravindra Anant Suryawanshi and Anr.

Sunil Vishnu Kale and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Anil Nivruti Jadhav and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

The State of Mah Vs Ambadas Ruprao Tayade

Raosaheb Madhav Avahad and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.