Allowed

The Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Shahaji Pandurang Patil and Anr.

Bombay HC10 Jan 2012APPLN/2129/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal application for leave to appeal against an acquittal under Section 138 of the NI Act, the single-judge High Court granted leave. It held that the lower court erred in not considering the presumption of liability under Section 139 and the validity of a blank cheque delivery.

What did the court decide?

Leave to file an appeal against the order of acquittal was granted and the case for record was called for.

The Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs Shahaji Pandurang Patil and… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1Appln 2129-10.odt

¶2

Anand

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2129 OF 2010

¶5

The Godavari Sugar Mills Limited .Applicant

¶6

 V/s.

¶7

Shahaji Pandurang Patil & anr..Respondents

¶8

Mr.G.K.Jadhav, Advocate, for the Applicant
Smt.S.V.Sonawane, APP, for Respondent No.2 -
State

¶9

CORAM:R.C.CHAVAN, J.
DATE:10TH JANUARY, 2012

¶10

P.C.

¶11

.Heard the learned counsel for the

¶12

respective parties.

¶13

2.This is an application for leave to

¶14

file an appeal against acquittal of respondent

¶15

No.1 for the offence punishable under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by

¶16

the learned Judicial Magistrate F. C., Kolhapur, after having held that the complainant had proved payment of 2,00,000/- to the accused`

¶17

2Appln 2129-10.odt

¶18

towards advance. The cheque dis-honoured was for 99,010/-. The accused claimed that he had given a blank cheque. The learned Magistrate disbelieved the complainant's version holding that the complainant has not proved his account books to show that a sum of 99,010/- was due.

¶19

The learned Magistrate should have seen that a
party signing and delivering a blank cheque
authorises the holder to fill up the blank
cheque. The presumption about existance of
legally enforceable liability under Section 139
of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 should
also have been considered. Judgment would
require re-consideration.

¶20

3.Leave granted.

¶21

4.Admit.

¶22

5.Call for R & P.

¶23

3Appln 2129-10.odt

¶24

6.Action under Section 390. Needless to

¶25

say, 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 Appellate Court. If the accused appear on
their own, the learned Magistrate need not wait
for process to be issued or served upon the
accused but shall admit them to such bails as he
may deem fit.

The Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Shahaji Pandurang Patil and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Shahaji Pandurang Patil 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

Suryakant Bhujangrao Patil Vs Tukaram Namdeo Suryavanshi and Anr.

Suryakant Bhujangrao Patil Vs Tukaram Namdeo Suryavanshi and Anr.

Mohammad Sajid Abdul Majid Momin Vs the State of Maharashtra

The Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs Shahaji Pandurang Patil and Anr.

Vijay Bhimrao Bharsangde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sukhdev Mahadeo Khade Vs Mahendra Govind Salunkhe and Anr.