Dismissed

Jasmin Bhogilal Shah v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC15 Jul 2013APL/153/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the applicant's criminal application challenging prosecution under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court held that no application under Section 258 Cr.P.C. was maintainable, rejects quashing via Section 482 despite a stay, and upholds presumptions under the NI Act.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Application dismissed; Applicant directed to deposit costs of Rs.50,000/- within 15 days; Stay on prosecution extended till 29.07.2013.

Jasmin Bhogilal Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2013)

apl153-13.sxw

1/3

Pvr

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.153 OF 2013

¶7

Jasmin Bhogilal Shah. …Applicant versus 1.The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents

¶8

Mr.M.M.Vashi i/b. Rishi Bhuta, for Applicant.

¶9

Mr.S.S.Pednekar, APP for Respondent no.1.

¶10

Mr.Mukesh Modi, for Respondent no.2.

¶11

CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.

¶12

DATED : 15^th July, 2013

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

Heard.

¶15

The applicants are facing prosecution under Section 138, 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the earlier round of litigation between the same parties vide Criminal Writ Petition no.150 of 2006 and other group matters, this Court (Coram: S.C.Dharmadhikari, J.)on 20.10.2006 considered almost all the points referred by the learned Counsel for accusedapplicant questioning prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It was at that time, this Court directed the learned M.M to

apl153-13.sxw

2/3

Pvr

proceed with the matter expeditiously.

¶20

Before the learned Judge, evidence of complainant's side was completed, two witnesses from defence, as bank witnesses were examined. An application under Section 258 of Cr.P.C. was moved. The learned Judge rejected the same and confirmed in the revision.

¶21

Basically exercise of such powers by both the Courts was in tune with the legal position, there could not be an application under Section 258 of Cr.P.C. as the accused applicant desired.

¶22

At the fag end of the matter, point raised of issuing cheque in the name of a private limited company and presenting the same to a public limited company, was not open to be coined. It was expected of the applicant to face the prosecution to its logical end. One cannot give a gobye to impetus of Section 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act dealing with presumption and holder in due course.

¶23

The amount in the present transaction is of Rs.10 lakhs. However, six cases on identical facts covers the amount upto Rs.1 crore.

¶24

The impression generated from reading the papers is, the

¶25

3/3 apl153-13.sxw

¶26

Pvr

¶27

applicant is more keen and desirous to block the matter under all possible excuses. Stay granted by this Court (Coram: Ranjit More, J.) on 28.2.2013 cannot be a ground to entertain application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. as all the points were not placed before the Court. In the circumstances, criminal application is dismissed. The applicant to deposit costs of Rs.50,000/- within 15 days. If costs are not paid, to be recovered as land revenue.

¶28

Heard. At the request of the learned Counsel, Stay granted by this Court is extended till 29^th July,2013.

Jasmin Bhogilal Shah v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jasmin Bhogilal Shah 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

Amish Jayant Dharod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

M/S. Paranjpe Construction Companny and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Gajanan Bapu Jadhav and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Amarjeet Nirangan Singh and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Jessy Alex Binoy Vs v. a. Thomas and Anr.

Jessy Alex Binoy Vs v. a. Thomas and Anr.