Dismissed

Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. through Br Manager S Udeshmukh v. Rajesh Patil and Anr.

Bombay HC29 Aug 2011APPLN/1108/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused leave to challenge an acquittal in a cheque dishonour case. The Trial Court acquitted the accused due to insufficient evidence regarding the guarantee relationship and lack of supporting documents like the hire purchase agreement.

What did the court decide?

Leave to challenge the acquittal refused; application disposed of.

Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. through Br Manager S… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

1 Cri.A.1108.10

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1108 OF 2010

¶5

`[ Shr`	`iram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.` `Vs.` `Rajesh Patil and another]`
`Office Notes, Office` `Memoranda of Coram,`	`Court’s or Judge’s orders`
`appearances, Court’s` `orders or directions` `and Registrar’s` `orders`
	`Mr.Swpanil S.Patil,Advocate holding for` `Mr.Alok Sharma,Advocate for applicant.` `Mr.Hemant Surve,Advocate for respondent.` `...` `CORAM : U.D.SALVI, J.` `DATE : 29TH AUGUST, 2011`
	`PER COURT :`
	`. Heard.`
	`1. Perused the application and record.`	`The`
	`Cheque in question, according to`	`the`
	`applicant/complainant was issued by`	`the`
	`respondent/accused No.1 towards payment`	`of`
	`the installment due from borro`	`wer`
	`respondent/accused No.2, in capacity`	`as`
	`guarantor` `in` `favour` `of`	`the`
	`applicant/complainant. Relationship of`	`the`
	`accused No. 1 as guarantor w`	`ith`
	`applicant/complainant remains shrouded`	`in`

¶6

2 Cri.A.1108.10

¶7

doubt and that is the reason why there has
been acquittal of the accused, as per
observations made by the learned trial
Court in the impugned judgment, which read
as follows:

¶8

“18.In this respect the complainant relied on the oral evidence adduced by witness Kailas Sakharam Janjal below Exh.73 and Abhijit Vijayrao Deshpande below Exh.78. Kailas Sakharam Janjal is the Recovery Officer of Devgiri Nagri Sahakari Bank and during his oral evidence he submitted that complainant has taken responsibility of debt of accused No.2 and memorandum of

¶9

understanding is executed in this respect on dated 08.10.1998. But no such document is filed on record nor it is proved. Witness Abhijit Vijayrao Deshpande substantiated that complainant paid Rs. 6,30,018/- to Devgiri Nagari Saharki Bank towards outstanding of accused No.2 and took matter for recovery with issue also substantiated that,

¶10

3 Cri.A.1108.10

¶11

one hire purchase agreement was executed and accused No.1 stood as a guarantor for accused No.2 and accordingly he had given three cheques bearing No.80267,80268, 80266 i.e. present cheques Exh.39. In the cross examination this witness admitted that the agreement of hire purchase was not executed in his presence. He do not know the contents of that agreement. He has no concern with the terms and conditions mentioned in that agreement. He has no concerned with the person who stood as a guarantor for the accused No.2“

¶12

. Perusal of the record reveals that the

¶13

learned trial Court was justified in
acquitting the respondents/accused. Leave
is refused. The application is disposed off
accordingly.
 Sd/-

¶14

 [U.D.SALVI, J.]

¶15

MTK

Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. through Br Manager S Udeshmukh v. Rajesh Patil and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. through Br Manager S Udeshmukh v. Rajesh Patil and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharashtra Vs Sk.Mahemood Sk.Pashu and Ors.

Chandrakant Jagannath Mahajan Vs the State of Mah

The State of Maharashtra Vs Shaikh Salim Ibrahim

Priyadarshani Mahila Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs Sharada Shivaji Javare

The State of Mah Vs Anita Vijay Gadiya

The Stte of Maharashtra Vs Sow Anita Vijay Gadiya