Allowed

Premchand Bansilal Kucheria v. Shivdas Sonajikokane and Anr.

Bombay HC1 Sept 2010APPLN/75/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted leave to the original complainant to appeal an acquittal by the Judicial Magistrate in a cheque dishonour case. Despite the respondent's defence that he was not the borrower, the Court held that the trial court erred in not adequately examining the complainant's lending capacity and the negative burden on the respondent.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal is granted and the application is allowed. No action under section 390 of the CrPC is required.

Premchand Bansilal Kucheria Vs Shivdas Sonajikokane and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

( 1 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

¶3

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 75 OF 2010

¶5

Premchand s/o Bansilal Kucheria

¶6

APPLICANT

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Shivdas s/o Sonaji Kokane & another

¶9

RESPONDENTS

¶10

Mr. Anand Chaware, advocate for the applicant. Smt. Sadhana S. Jadhav, advocate for the respondent No.1. Mr. N.H. Borade, APP for the respondent No. 2/State.

¶11

[CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.]

¶12

[DATE : 1st September, 2010]

¶13

PER COURT :

¶14

By this application, original complainant seeks

¶15

leave to appeal against judgement of acquittal rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Jalna in S.T.C. No. 2155/2007 for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶16

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned judgement, it is amply clear that the issuance of dishonoured cheque by the respondent No. 1 is undisputed. The defence of the respondent No. 1 was that the liability to pay the amount of Rs. 75,000/- as shown in the

¶17

cheque was wrongly foisted on him though he was not the

¶18

( 2 )

¶19

borrower of the said amount. The learned Judicial Magistrate held that the applicant had no capacity to lend the amount. It is observed that the applicant himself had borrowed certain

¶20

loan and was paying interest over the said loan of Rs. 50,000/- borrowed from Jalna Peoples Cooperative Bank in or about August, 2006. It is required to be examined whether inspite of the applicant being borrower himself, he could have lent the amount of Rs. 75,000/- to the respondent No.1. He had also produced acknowledgement issued by the respondent about the payment. So also, negative burden is cast on the respondent No. 1 to establish as to how the presumption available under the Negotiable Instruments Act would be of no avail. Considering these aspects and the reasons ascribed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, it prima facie appears that it is necessary to re-consider the facts and circumstances on basis of the evidence adduced before the trial Court. Consequently, leave to appeal is granted. The application is allowed. Smt. S.S. Jadhav waives for the respondent No. 1 in the appeal and hence, no action under section 390 of the Criminal Procedure Code is required to be taken.

¶21

[V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE

¶22

NPJ/criapln75-10

¶23

( 3 )

Premchand Bansilal Kucheria v. Shivdas Sonajikokane and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Premchand Bansilal Kucheria v. Shivdas Sonajikokane 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

Deodatta Digambar Mai @ Mayee and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pandurang Baburao Bagal Vs Chandrakant Rustumrao More and Anr.

Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Co. Op Sugar Factory Ltd. Keshegaon Th Auth Signatory Pramod Bhagwat Bhusare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Balu Radhuji Ingale and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

State of Mah Vs Ravindra Anant Suryawanshi and Anr.

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