Allowed

Manohar S/O Kondbaji Jadhav v. Mahadev Bapurao Kale

Bombay HC28 Aug 2012APPA/48/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Intrinsic examination of rival submissions on an application for leave to file appeal against the acquittal of the respondent accused under the Negotiable Instruments Act. Leave was granted due to a triable issue regarding a blank cheque admitted by the complainant.

What did the court decide?

Leave to file appeal against acquittal granted; matter remanded or allowed to proceed as an appeal with call for records.

Manohar S/O Kondbaji Jadhav Vs Mahadev Bapurao Kale — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

28.8.appa48.12.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

Criminal Application [APPA] No.48 of 2012

¶5

[Manohar s/o Kondbaji Jadhav .vs. Mahadev Bapurao Kale]

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶7

Mr. J.Y. Ghurde, Advocate for applicant-original complainant, Mr. S.N. Bhattad, Advocate for respondent-accused.

¶8

CORAM : A.R. JOSHI, J. DATED : AUGUST 28, 2012.

¶9

1] Heard rival submissions of both the sides on this application preferred by the applicant-original complainant for leave to file appeal against the acquittal of the respondentaccused.

¶10

2] Respondent-accused was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. There is a triable issue to be dealt with in the present appeal preferred by the complainant against accused in so far as though it was the evidence of the respondent-accused that he had given blank cheque with his signature to the complainant in the year 1998 along with two other cheques. Complainant did not return the said cheques, though

¶11

28.8.appa48.12.odt

¶12

¶13

according to the respondent-accused, he had already repaid the loan then allegedly taken from the complainant of Rs. 80,000/- along with interest.

¶14

3] It appears that the trial court was influenced by the certain admissions given by the complainant during his cross examination on other aspects of the implication of the defence of the accused that he had given the said cheques with his signature though in blank. It is admitted that there is nothing on record by way of defence during the trial that any stop payment instructions were given by the accused to his banker, when according to him, his three cheques, including the cheque in the present matter, were not handed over back to him by the complainant in the year 2008. As such, as mentioned earlier, this matter requires consideration and hence leave to file appeal is granted. The application stands

¶15

disposed of.

¶16

Criminal Appeal No. /2012

Heard.

Admit.

Call for R & P.

JUDGE

GULANDE

Manohar S/O Kondbaji Jadhav v. Mahadev Bapurao Kale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manohar S/O Kondbaji Jadhav v. Mahadev Bapurao Kale

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

Smt Ahilyabai W/O Shamraosingh Gaharwar Vs Shri Ramsingh S/O Namosingh Navniya and Others

Janardan Hari Maski Vs Shankar Bhaskar Badkhal and Others

Radheyshyam S/O Koduji Kumbhare Vs Govardhan S/O Bhiwaji Lanjewar and Anr.

Mahesh S/O Balaram Neharotra Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Its P.S.O.

Sunil S/O Gulabraoji Chafle Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Pso Samudrapur

Dhanraj S/O Shivram Tagde Vs the State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Katol Distt Nagpur