Application for leave to appeal against acquittal under Section 138 NI Act dismissed by High Court of Bombay (Criminal Appeal), as the view that the respondent was not liable for her husband's goods purchase was not perverse or improbable.
Leave to file appeal refused; appeal 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.
1Appln 455-11.odt
Anand
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.455 OF 2011
Sou.Vidya Nabhiraj Gangai.Applicant
V/s.
Sou. Manisha Uday Mudhale & anr..Respondents
Mr.D.A.Patil i/b. M/s.Milind Parab & Associates,
Advocate, for the Applicant
Mr.A.M.Adagule, Advocate, for Respondent No.1
Mrs.P.P.Bhosale, APP, for Respondent No.2 -
State
CORAM:R.C.CHAVAN, J.
DATE:5TH JANUARY, 2012
P.C.
.Heard the learned counsel for the
respective parties.
2.This is an application for leave to
file an appeal against acquittal of the
respondent No.1 for the offence punishable under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 by the learned Judicial Magistrate F. C.,
Kolhapur. The learned Magistrate held that
2Appln 455-11.odt
there was no nothing to show that any goods had
been purchased by the respondent. Goods were,
in fact, purchased by the respondent's husband.
Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to
show that the respondent was liable to pay for
the goods purchased by her husband, the learned
Magistrate held that the complainant failed to
prove any existence of legally enforceable
liability. It cannot be said that view taken by
the learned Magistrate was perverse or
improbable. Leave refused. Appeal dismissed.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to grant leave to appeal against acquittal on Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 where the Magistrate held the respondent was not liable as goods were purchased by her husband
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sou. Vidya Nabhiraj Gangai
Sou. Manisha Uday Mudhale
R.C.Chavan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court