Dismissed

Devidas Balasaheb Patil v. Dr. Santosh Ramchandra Tengle

Bombay HC27 Apr 2012REVN/154/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a cheque bounce case, the applicant sought an order compelling the complainant to produce records. The court held the application unnecessary as the defence could be met by cross-examination and existing documents, and dismissed the revision against the Magistrate for rejecting it.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Application was dismissed, upholding the Magistrate's rejection of the application for production of records.

Devidas Balasaheb Patil Vs Dr. Santosh Ramchandra Tengle — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

( 1 ) crirev154.11

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 154 OF 2011

¶4

Devidas s/o. Balasaheb Patil

¶5

Devidas s/o. Balasaheb Patil..Applicant
Versus
Dr. Santosh Ramchandra Tengle..Respondent

¶6

Mr. Vinesh C. Solshe, Advocate for the applicant.

¶7

CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE,J. DATED : 27.04.2012

¶8

P.C. :-

¶9

1.This application seeks to challenge the order dated
15.07.2011 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. below Exh.31 in
S.C.C. No. 158 of 2010, in which the petitioner is the
accused.

¶10

2.This is a case under section 138 of the Negotiable
Instrument Act. The case of the prosecution is that in order
to discharge liability of Rs.1,37,000/-, the applicant/
accused handed them a cheque of Rs.87,000/- and odd. They
asserted that the cheque bounced and despite the legal
notice, the amount was not paid. At the time of cross-
examination, application Exh.31 was moved. In this
application, the applicant/accused requested the the Court to
compel the respondent/complainant to produce before the court
certain record. The facts and the probable line of defence
do not require production of any record of the complainant.
The application was moved apparently for delaying the

¶11

( 2 ) crirev154.11

¶12

criminal case. There is no dispute between the parties that
the applicant/accused is tenant of respondent/complainant and
it is also not in dispute that the applicant/accused was in
arrears of dues of rent. The only dispute indicated by the
learned Counsel for the applicant is that the amount of Rs.
87,000/- and odd mentioned in the cheque was not due and
payable by the applicant. So, the cheque did not represent
legal liability or liability of the applicant. In order to
prove this defence, the cross-examination of the complainant
would have been sufficient. The applicant himself has
documents such as rent receipts etc. He could still prove
that he did not owe the amount mentioned in the cheque on the
date of issuance. Since this was possible through cross-
examination, the application Exh.31 was unnecessary.
Apparently, as said above, it was only moved for delaying the
case. The application ought to have been dismissed. There
is no error in the part of the learned Magistrate, when he
rejected the application. The Criminal Revision Application
is dismissed.

¶13

snk/2012/APR12/crirev154.11

Devidas Balasaheb Patil v. Dr. Santosh Ramchandra Tengle

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devidas Balasaheb Patil v. Dr. Santosh Ramchandra Tengle

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

M/S D Natwarlal and Co. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dr Jayesh@Gulan Sukhevrao Shinde and Ors. Vs Appropriatte Authority Dr Rameshchandra Kisan Savkare and Anr.

Shakir Hasan Sayyad and Anr. Vs the State of Mah

Bhaulal Shamlal Tarte and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

M Sarojini Ammal and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Sakharam S/O. Motiram Wawhale Vs the State of Maharashtra