Dismissed

Asha R. Desai v. Suhas P. Thakur and Anr.

Bombay HC4 May 2011APPLN/251/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal application under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay considered the acquittal of the accused. The court held that the applicant failed to establish a legally enforceable debt as the source of the loan amount was not shown.

What did the court decide?

Acquittal of the accused is upheld. Leave to appeal is refused.

Asha R. Desai Vs Suhas P. Thakur and Anr. — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2011)

CR.APLN.251.11.odt

mnm

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 251 OF 2011

¶7

Asha R. Desai Vs.

¶8

Suhas P. Thakur & Anr.

¶9

...Applicant/Orig.Complainant

¶10

...Respondents/Orig.Accused

¶11

Mr. Devidas Keluskar i/b. Smt. V. Nirmala, Advocate for Applicant Mr. Jayesh Bhatt, Advocate for Respondent No.1 Mrs. M. M. Deshmukh, A.P.P for the State

¶12

CORAM : SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 4^TH MAY, 2011

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

This application came up for hearing on 2nd May 2011. It was extensively argued. Some further instructions were to be taken by the Advocate for the Applicant. The Advocate for the Applicant is now stated to have left Mumbai on the ground that her mother-in-law is ill. She has not taken any instructions and not given any instructions. The criminal application is to be considered from the material on record.

¶15

The Applicant lodged the criminal prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 upon a dishonoured cheque of Rs. 2,50,000/-. The accused has denied receipt of the amount alltogether. Hence the Court had to see whether the cheque was issued for a legally enforciable liability. The grant of the loan has not been shown by the Applicant. The learned Judge has considered the status of the Applicant.

¶16

CR.APLN.251.11.odt

¶17

¶18

She was running a beauty parlour. She stated that she earned Rs.7000/p.m. Her husband is a driver. She did not know the accused at all. She came in contact with the accused through the goldsmith. She is stated to have handed over Rs.2,50,000/- in a lumpsum to the accused. This was given in the absence of her husband. She was called upon to account for this amount during the course of cross examination. She did not herself state the sources of the receipt of such amount. In the cross examination she mentioned about the sale of landed property of her father from which she received Rs.1,60,000/-.

¶19

The accused contended that he had only taken Rs.25,000/- and refunded by different pay orders. The Bank slips were verified by the learned Judge to see the pay orders deposited and credited in the account of the Complainant/Applicant.

¶20

The learned Judge has concluded that such a transaction could not have taken place. Consequently, the Applicant did not make out a case of legally enforceable debt under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. The acquittal cannot be faulted. Leave to appeal is refused.

¶21

(SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)

Asha R. Desai v. Suhas P. Thakur and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asha R. Desai v. Suhas P. Thakur 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

Deepa Jethanand Lalwani Vs Ramesh Santdas Khilani and Anr.

M/S. Sai Drishti Enterprises Vs M/S Excel Ice Services and Ors.

T. a. Shah Group of Companies Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vadakke Kanakath Jayalaxmi Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Sapnya Khatalya Bhosale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Asif Ashraf Hussain Vs the State of Maharashtra