This application seeks leave to appeal against the acquittal of the respondent in a Section 138 NI Act case. The High Court held that the acquittal was supported by evidence of separate bills for the same consignment and denied leave, dismissing the appeal.
Leave to appeal refused and the applicant's appeal was dismissed.
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.
1 APPLN 2767 OF 2010
vks
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2767 OF 2010
Smt. Sushma Audhendra Tripathi .. Applicant -versus
Smt. Suman Deep Narayan Pandey and anr .. Respondents.
Mr. U. N. Upadhyay, for the applicant.
Mr. S. V. Sonawane, APP for the Respondent State.
CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: 4th January, 2012
P.C.
2 APPLN 2767 OF 2010
witness, was rewarded by getting admission from complainant's husband as well as evidence or D.W.4 Rajendra Thakkar, who stated that bills for the same consignment were issued by Asha Container, which was a firm in which the complainant was a partner and KDM Containers which was a proprietary concern of complainant's husband.
(R. C. CHAVAN, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether permissible interference is called for on the present evidence regarding the discharge of the accused in cheque bounce case.
Whether the conclusion of acquittal is perverse given the evidence regarding separate billing for the same consignment by different entities.
Whether leave to file appeal against the order of acquittal should be granted.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Sushma Audhendra Tripathi
Smt. Suman Deep Narayan Pandey and anr
R.C. Chavan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
