The high court dismissed the applicant's criminal appeal for leave to file a second appeal. The court upheld the acquittal, finding the trial court's inference that the transaction was in 2003 based on witness statements was not perverse.
Leave to file second appeal refused. Appeal dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Appln 540-2010
1
Anand
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.540 OF 2010
Kantilal G. Kothari.Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & ors.Respondents
Mr.D.G.Kothari, Advocate, for the Applicant
Mrs.A.S.Pai, APP, for Respondent No.1 - State
CORAM:R.C.CHAVAN, J.
DATE:23RD JUNE, 2011
P.C.
.Heard the learned Counsel for the
respective parties.
2.This is an application for leave to
file an Appeal against acquittal of the
respondent Nos.2 & 3 ordered by the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate, Kurla, on the ground
that the cheque in question was, in fact,
issued in the year 2003 and therefore, the
cheque could not have been presented in the
year 2006. The Complainant came with the case
2 Appln 540-2010
that he had advanced a loan of Rs.3,00,000/-
against sale consideration of the flat to the
accused without mentioning any date of such
transaction. He then states that in order to
discharge the liability in part payment,
accused No.1 issued a cheque bearing No.887903
dtd. 25th June, 2006 for a sum of Rs.2,25,000/-
which was presented, dishonoured and not
provided for in spite of service of notice of
demand. The accused came up with the defence
that the transaction was of the year 2003 and
the cheque was issued in the year 2003, and
that, the date on the cheque was altered to
25th June, 2006 subsequently. The respondent
had, in fact, applied for the cheque being
sent to the hand writing expert, which prayer
was rejected by the Trial Court. The
Complainant had stated that an agreement in
respect of the flat was executed in the year
2003. He further stated that both he &
accused went to the Bank and the Complainant
requested the accused to issue fresh cheque to
3 Appln 540-2010
which the accused corrected the date on the
cheque on the ground that the accused did not
have any fresh cheque. The import of the
statement is clear that the cheque in question
was, in fact, issued in the year 2003.
Therefore, the inference drawn by the learned
Magistrate cannot be said to be perverse or
improbable, particularly, in the face of the
fact that the Complainant was clearly avoiding
to state that the transaction was of the year
2003. Leave refused. Appeal dismissed.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether leave should be granted for second appeal against acquittal on ground that the cheque date was altered from 2003 to 2006.
Kantilal G. Kothari
State of Maharashtra
R.C. Chavan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court