Partly allowed

Bhimrao Deu Kadam v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC16 Jan 2012APPLN/100/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Application 99 of 2011 dismissed as Magistrate's refusal to hold cheque dishonour valid based on admitted partial payment was not perverse. Application 100 of 2011 admitted for distinct cheque; no security required if accused voluntarily appear.

What did the court decide?

Leave for appeal granted against acquittal on cheque by Sahdev; rejected for cheque by Pravin. No mandatory process under Section 390 CrPC if accused appear voluntarily.

Bhimrao Deu Kadam Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

sjs 1 APPLN-G-100.11

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE � CRIMINAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.100 OF 2011
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.99 OF 2011

¶3

Bhimrao Deu Kadam.... Applicant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra
& Anr..... Respondents

¶4

S/Shri G.N. Salunke i/b G.C. Sawant
for the Applicant.
Shri Y.M. Nakhwa, APP, for the State.

¶5

CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J.
DATED: JANUARY 16, 2012

¶6

P.C:

¶7

1. These are two applications for leave to file appeals against acquittal of the respondents by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 53rd Court, Mulund, Mumbai of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in respect of two cheques, issued by two brothers who are the respondents. One is for 50,000/-, issued by Pravin and the other is for 42,000/-, issued by Sahdev. The learned Magistrate held that the complainant had admitted having received

¶8

2 APPLN-G-100.11

¶9

sjs

¶10

22,000/- towards the amount due and therefore it could not be held that the cheques were for amounts to be legally recovered. This is in the context of the admission of the respondents that sum of 92,000/- had been received by the them from the complainant. The learned counsel for the applicant is right in submitting that even if it is presumed that a sum of 22,000/was allegedly paid by Pravin to the applicant, at worst, the case of dishonour of cheque issued by Pravin could be rejected, but not in respect of dishonour of cheque issued by Sahdev.`

¶11

2.In view of the above, Criminal
Application No.99 of 2011 is rejected, since
the view taken by the learned Magistrate cannot
be called perverse of improbable. Hence leave
refused. Appeal dismissed.

¶12

3.In so far as Criminal Application No.
100 of 2011 is concerned, leave is granted.
Appeal admitted. Call for the R & P. Action
under section 390 of Cr.P.C. to follow. Action
under Section 390 means that the learned
Magistrate may cause the accused to be produced
before him by appropriate process and take
security from them for their appearance in the

¶13

sjs 3 APPLN-G-100.11 Appellate Court. If the accused appear on their own, the learned Magistrate need not wait for the process to be issued or served upon the accused but shall admit them to such bail as he may deem fit. Criminal Application No.100 of 2011 accordingly stands disposed of.

Bhimrao Deu Kadam v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhimrao Deu Kadam v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Pratapsinh Shankarrao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dattatrya Shankarrao Dandgal and Anr. Vs St Ate of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Sadanand Baburao Shelake and Ors.

Ajit Tukuram Sable and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vishnukant Gangadhar Gite Vs Usha Dhruva Damare and Anr.

Abida Shaikh W/O Anwar Gulam Mohd. Shaikh Vs Anwar Gulam Mohd and Ors.