Dismissed

Dinesh Champalal Kothqri v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC24 Apr 2012WP/1630/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging an order exhibiting documents under section 138 of the N.I. Act. The Court held that exhibition does not equate to proof and that the objection should be raised before the Magistrate during trial.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with observations that the petitioner need not invoke writ jurisdiction as the remedy lies before the learned Magistrate.

Dinesh Champalal Kothqri Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2012)

1630.09

Rng

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1630 OF 2009

¶7

Dinesh Champalal Kothari

¶8

 ..Petitioner

¶9

vs

¶10

1.State of Maharashtra

¶11

2.M/s Baldawa Enterprises .. Respondents

¶12

Mr.Sandesh Patil for Petitioner
Ms.R.M.Gadhavi APP for State
None for Respt no.2

¶13

 CORAM: A.M.THIPSAY, J

¶14

 DATE: April 24, 2012

¶15

P.C.

¶16

1. Heard Mr.Sandesh Patil,learned Advocate for the
Petitioner and Ms.Sonavane learned APP for the
State. Advocate for the Respondent No.2 is absent.

¶17

2. The Petitioner is an Accused in Summary
Criminal case No.1070 of 2008 pending in the Court
of the J.M.F.C. Ichalkaranji. The case is in
respect of the offence punishable under section 138
of the Negotiable Instrument Act and arises out of a
complaint filed by the Respondent No.2 herein.

¶18

3. In the course of trial of the said case, on

¶19

19.3.2009, the Respondent no.2 preferred an

¶20

- 2 -

¶21

1630.09

¶22

Application for production of certain documents
which was allowed and certain documents mentioned in
the said Application came to be exhibited. They were
marked as Exhibit nos. 37/C to 58/C. No Affidavits
in lieu of the Examination-in-chief of the
Respondent no.2 or witnesses were filed at the time
of production and marking of the said documents.

¶23

4. The Petitioner apprehended that these

¶24

documents which came to be marked and exhibited
would be treated as 'proved' during the trial and in
that event, the Petitioner would be prejudiced. He
has therefore, approached this Court by the present
Petition for an appropriate Writ, Order, direction of
this Court praying that the orders by the learned
Magistrate exhibiting the documents be quashed and
set aside.

¶25

5. In my opinion, the Petition is misconceived.

¶26

6. According to the Petitioner's own case, these
documents were not produced in the course of
adducing of any evidence. According to the
Petitioner, he never admitted those documents or
consented for they being tendered in evidence. It
is also submitted and is supported by a copy of the

¶27

Roznama that these documents were not filed along
with the Affidavit of Respondent no.2 or his
witnesses as and by way of Examination-in-chief. It
is therefore, obvious that these documents were not
proved in accordance with law.

¶28

'Exhibiting' the documents. Marking of certain
documents as Exhibits is a matter of convenience and
practice. Merely by exhibiting the documents, it can
never be said that their contents have been duly
proved as required by law. Therefore, even if the
documents have been exhibited, the question whether
the contents thereof have been proved would
obviouslyrequireconsideration;andthe

¶29

apprehension in that regard, entertained by the
Petitioner, does not seem to be justified.

¶30

Petitioner to contend before the Learned Magistrate
that though exhibited the documents in question are
not 'duly proved' or that their contents are not
proved; and in the event of such a contention being
raised, the learned Magistrate shall be bound to
consider the same and deal with the same in
accordance with law.

¶31

¶32

1630.09

¶33

9. Since such a course viz: of raising the
relevant contentions before the Learned Magistrate
is available to the Petitioner, it is not necessary
to pass any orders in this Petition, by invoking the
constitutional and inherent jurisdiction of this
Court.

¶34

10. The Petition is dismissed with the aforesaid
observations.

¶35

{A.M.THIPSAY, J}

Dinesh Champalal Kothqri v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Champalal Kothqri v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Sursh Mohanlal Jain and Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Ors.

Archana Yashwant Thombare Vs Yashwant Nivrutti Thombare and Anr.

Syed Jalal Jalali and Ors. Vs Parvinder Singh Dhigra and Anr.

Maya Sanjivan Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anchor Electricals Private Limited Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Maya Sanjivan Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra