Petitioner challenged the limitation period in a cheque bounce case. The High Court noted conflicting dates in notice service but dismissed the petition, upholding the lower courts' view that the complaint was within limitation unless the accused proves otherwise during trial.
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.
WP1905-12.sxw
1/2
Pvr
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1905 OF 2012
Shri.Shrikant Krishna Shetty. …Petitioner. versus 1.The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents ---
Ms.Rashmi Gangwani i/b. Ganesh Gole, for Petitioner.
Ms.Pallavi Patel i/b. Rajeev Matkar, for Respondent no.2.
Mrs.A.A.Mane, APP for State.
CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.
DATED : 7th December, 2012
P.C. :
Heard.
WP1905-12.sxw
2/2
Pvr
limitation to start from 16.12.2009 for 15 days from making payment and thereafter, within a period of one month the complaint is to be filed as is directed under Section 142(b) of Negotiable Instruments Act.
so. For the present, no error can be seen in the orders of both the Courts. The petition dismissed.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is barred by limitation as there was a two-day delay.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Shri.Shrikant Krishna Shetty
The State of Maharashtra
K.U.CHANDIWAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
