Allowed

Haresh R. Mehta v. M/S. Kinjal Metals Ltd. and Ors.

Bombay HC27 Jul 2012APPLN/274/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application for leave to appeal against acquittal in a cheque dishonour case. Applicant argued account attachment by Income Tax prevented payment. Court held attachment not complainant's fault and granted leave to appeal, directing call for records and action under Section 390 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Leave granted to file appeal; call for records (R & P) ordered; direction to act under Section 390 Cr.P.C.

Haresh R. Mehta Vs M/S. Kinjal Metals Ltd. and Ors. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

APPLN-274.2012

¶2

sjs

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE – CRIMINAL
APPLICATION NO.274 OF 2012

¶4

Haresh R. Mehta.... Applicant
Vs.
M/s. Kinjal Metals Ltd.
& Ors..... Respondents

¶5

S/Shri Prakash Naik i/b Chacko Joseph
for the Applicant.

¶6

Shri J.P. Kharge, APP, for the State.

¶7

DATED: JULY 27, 2012

¶8

P.C:

¶9

1.This is an application for leave to
file appeal against the acquittal of the
respondents for the offence punishable under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
on the ground that the cheque was dishonoured
as the account was attached by the Income Tax
Department and therefore the accused could be
held guilty. If the accused had an intention to
pay, after receipt of the notice, the accused
should have paid the amount of the cheque and
in any case after receipt of summons from the
Court the accused could have done the needful.

Page 1 of 2

sjs

APPLN-274.2012

Attachment of the accused's account by the
Income Tax Department cannot be the fault of
the complainant and the complainant cannot be
deprived of what was due to him. Leave granted.
Admit. Call for the R & P. Action under Section
390 of Cr.P.C. to follow. Needless to 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 bail as he may
deem fit.

¶14

2.The application accordingly stands
disposed of.

¶15

Page 2 of 2

Haresh R. Mehta v. M/S. Kinjal Metals Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haresh R. Mehta v. M/S. Kinjal Metals Ltd. and Ors.

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

Case details

Similar cases

State of Maharashtra Vs Krishnat Shankar Kharade

The State of Maharashtra Vs Mangal Bhagwan Nale

Kolhapur Municipal Corporation Vs Dr. Tukaram Govind Mane and Ors.

Vishnu Eknath Tarange and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Kallappa Babu Kumbhar

Balu Kondiba Thengil Vs Jaywant Yallappa Shinde and Anr.