This court dismissed a criminal revision application seeking to quash a conviction for cheque dishonour under Section 138 NI Act, holding no reason to interfere given the applicant's failure to honour a statement of willingness to pay.
The criminal revision application was dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence.
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.
SSK/903
1
revn 277.11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 277 OF 2011
Sukhdev Shankar Mane ....Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents
Mr. Mahindra A Patil, advocate for the applicant. Mr. A. S. Shitole, APP for the State. Mr. G. C. Sawant, Advocate for respondent no.2.
CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J.
th NOVEMBER, 2011.
P.C.:
Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. The conviction is confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge in revision. The applicant had taken a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from respondent no.2-Patsanstha and in discharge thereof gave five cheques. The applicant did not dispute his signatures on the said cheques. Admittedly, when the cheques were presented by the complainant, the same were dishonoured, and the complainant thereafter issued statutory notice and filed a complaint. Prima-facie, presumption that the cheques were issued in discharge of the
SSK/903 2 revn 277.11
applicant’s liability is not rebutted, inasmuch as, the applicant did not enter into the witness box. Inspite of the statutory notice, the applicant did not pay the amount to respondent no.2-complainant. Learned Magistrate, after having considered the evidence on record, convicted the applicant, which conviction is confirmed by the lower appellate court in an appeal. The applicant on 19th July, 2011 made a statement that he is willing to settle the dues of respondent no.2. However, he has not abided by this statement. Taking overall facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any reason so as as to enable me to interfere in the aforesaid revision in the jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The criminal revision application is, accordingly, dismissed.
(RANJIT MORE, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether this Court should exercise its powers under Section 397 CrPC to interfere with the conviction for cheque dishonour.
Whether the applicant's failure to pay dues after a voluntary statement of willingness to settle warrants remission of the conviction.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sukhdev Shankar Mane
The State of Maharashtra
Patsanstha
RANJIT MORE, J.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
