Dismissed

Mukand Global Finance Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Jun 2011APPLN/2173/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of an application for leave to appeal against an acquittal in a cheque dishonour case. The applicant contended that the accused failed to receive the notice of dishonour within the statutory period. The court observed that the affidavit evidence contradicted the applicant's claim regarding the date of receipt. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused and the appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal against acquittal refused; appeal dismissed.

Mukand Global Finance Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

Appln 2173-2009

¶2

¶3

Anand

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2173 OF 2009

¶6

Mukund Global Finance Ltd..Applicant

¶7

 V/s.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & ors .Respondents

¶9

Mr.Ashish Chavan, Advocate, for the Applicant
Mr.S.A.Shaikh, APP, for Respondent No.1 �
State

¶10

Mr.Ganesh Gole, Advocate, for the Respondent
Nos.2 to 4

¶11

CORAM:R.C.CHAVAN, J.
DATE:13TH JUNE, 2011

¶12

P.C.

¶13

.Heard the learned Counsel for the
respective parties.

¶14

2.This is an application for leave to

¶15

file an Appeal against acquittal of the
respondent Nos.2 to 4 for the offence

¶16

punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable

¶17

Instruments Act recorded by the learned
Special Metropolitan Magistrate and Judge of
Small Causes Court on the ground that the

¶18

2 Appln 2173-2009

¶19

notice which was required to be given under
the unamended provisions of the N.I.Act have
stood in the year 1998 was not given within
the prescribed period of 15 days from the
receipt of the intimation of dishonour. The

¶20

learned Counsel for the applicant submits that
the memo of dishonour is dated 28th November,

¶21

1998. It was, in fact, received by his client
on 2nd December, 1998. Therefore, notice was
issued within the prescribed period of 15
days. He submits that such an averment has
been made in the complaint and that the
Complainant's witness has not been cross
examined on this aspect. The learned Counsel

¶22

for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 states that
there is no question of cross examination on

¶23

this aspect as affidavit in lieu of
examination-in-chief does not state that
intimation of dishonour was received on 2nd
December, 1998. Rather para 7 mentions that

¶24

intimation of dishonour was received on 28th
November, 1998. In view of this, it cannot be

¶25

3 Appln 2173-2009 said that the learned Magistrate erred in acquitting the respondent Nos.2 to 4. Leave refused. Appeal dismissed.

¶26

(R.C.CHAVAN, J.)

Mukand Global Finance Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukand Global Finance Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

M/S. Greenline Shipping Agency Vs R.C. Gupta and Anr.

K.R. Malhotra Vs Dr. Kishore S. Harbada and Anr.

Bhimrao Rajaram Chougule Vs Bhagwan Ramchandra Kore and Anr.

Sunil Ratanlal Chrungoo Vs the State of Maharashtra

Suresh Maikulal Gupta Vs Sanjay Fatehpuria and Anr.

Sanjay Namdeo Deore Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.