Allowed

Jayesh Shah v. Chaitanya S. Bhatt and Anr.

Bombay HC13 Sept 2011APPLN/1496/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment deals with complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court, in a criminal appellate proceeding, set aside the order rejecting summons for bank officials. It allowed the examination of bank officials to clarify account discrepancies before examining the complainant, citing Sections 231(2) and 242 Cr.P.C., and ordered costs against the appellant.

What did the court decide?

Application to issue summons to bank officials granted; costs of Rs. 5,000 consolidated awarded to the respondent.

Jayesh Shah Vs Chaitanya S. Bhatt and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2011)

1496.10

rng

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRI.APPLN NO.1496 OF 2010

¶5

1.Mr.Jayesh Shah .. Applicant

¶6

vs

¶7

1.Mr.Chaitanya S.Bhatt

¶8

2.The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents

¶9

with CRI.APPLN NO.1497 OF 2010

¶10

1.Mr.Jayesh Shah .. Applicant

¶11

1.Mr.Chaitanya S.Bhatt

¶12

2.The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents

¶13

with CRI.APPLN.NO.1498 OF 2010

¶14

1.Mr.Jayesh Shah .. Applicant

¶15

vs

¶16

1.Mr.Chaitanya S.Bhatt

¶17

2.The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents

¶18

Mr.J.A.Udaipuri for Applicant
Mr.Sandip Velkar for Respondent no.1
Mr.S.A.Shaikh APP for Respondents

¶19

CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J
 DATE:13th September,2011

¶20

P.C.

¶21

¶22

1496.10

¶23

1. Heard.

¶24

2. An Application was moved in the

¶25

respective three cases by the Complainant to
issue summons to the bank officials and

¶26

examine him before actual evidence of the
Complainant (tendered by way of evidence).
This was, before cross-examination commence.
Rejection thereof is impugned by the
Complainant.

¶27

3.The learned counsel for the Accused-

¶28

Respondent submits that such exercise is
not known to Indian Evidence Act. It will
add to prejudice the Accused as his defence
will be open.

¶29

4.The proceedings are under section 138 of

¶30

the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the

¶31

matter of such a nature, the Accused has

¶32

¶33

1496.10

¶34

come with a bold stand of denying of
documents including signature, on the cheque
or of opening the Account. There was no
option left to the Complainant but to invite
bank officials to get the mist cleared
keeping himself back to face cross-
examination.

¶35

5. At this stage, it would seldom indicate
that prejudice will be caused to the
Accused-respondent as it would open his
defence after recording the evidence of the
bank officials in time prior to cross
examination of the complainant. Such
exercise though flows in Section 231 (2) and
242 Cr.P.C. in matters of Sessions trial and
warrant cases, I do not see that any
prejudice would be caused to the Accused-
Respondent if entertained in terms of
section 231 (2) Cr.P.C and 242 proviso of
the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 which

¶36

¶37

1496.10

¶38

reads as under:

¶39

231 (2)

¶40

� Evidence for prosecution (2) The Judge
may, in his discretion, permit the
cross-examination of any witness to be
deferred until any other witness or
witnesses have been examined or recall
any witnessforfurthercross-
examination. �

¶41

Section 242
Evidence for prosecution
If the accused.........................
of witnesses.�

¶42

Provided...............by the police.

¶43

2.The ......................other thing.

¶44

3.On ........ ..the prosecution

¶45

Provided that the Magistrate may permit
the cross-examination of any witness to
be deferred until any other witness or
witnesses have been examined or recall
any witnessforfurthercross-
examination. �

¶46

Section 262 Cr.P.C. allows following

¶47

same procedure for summary trial, the
procedure specified for trial of summons

¶48

¶49

1496.10

¶50

case.

¶51

6.In case of this character, no apparent

¶52

harm to A/c is surfacing by asking examining
bank witness by deferring complainant's
evidence

¶53

Complainant to move the learned Judge
advancing the date for issuing summons to
bank officials.

¶54

8.The Complainant shall pay costs of Rs.

¶55

5000/- consolidated in three cases within

¶56

one month to the Accused-Respondents.

¶57

K.U.Chandiwal,J

Jayesh Shah v. Chaitanya S. Bhatt and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayesh Shah v. Chaitanya S. Bhatt 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

Ravindra M. Jatala Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Savitri @ Sumitra Siddappa Gouda Vs the Inspector of Police, Social Service Branch, Mumbai and Anr.

Savitri @ Sumitra Siddappa Gouda and Anr. Vs the Inspector of Police Social Service Branch and Anr.

Satish Bharama Chavan Vs the National Union of Seafarers of India and Ors.

Jiten P. Mody Vs Kapol Co. Operative Bank Ltd. and Anr.

Madhubal Vrajlal Seth Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.