Dismissed

M/S. Infosys Autocad Systems (India) Ltd. and Anr. v. M/S. Tech Pacific (India) Ltd. and Anr.

Bombay HC16 Jul 2013REVN/5/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision was filed challenging conviction and sentence for cheque dishonour under Section 138 NI Act. The applicant raised pleas regarding blank signature and returned goods, and sought consideration of unproved documents. The High Court held unproved documents inadmissible and dismissed the revision.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Application dismissed. Criminal Application dismissed.

M/S. Infosys Autocad Systems (India) Ltd. and Anr. Vs M/S… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

revn5-11

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

rpa

¶4

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.5 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.4 OF 2011

¶5

M/s. Infosys Autocad Systems (India) Ltd. & Anr.

¶6

.. Applicants

¶7

Vs.

¶8

M/s. Tech Pacific (India) Ltd. & Anr. .. Respondents

¶9

Mr. Manoj Bhatt, Advocate for the Applicants Ms. V. S. Mhaispurkar, A.P.P. for Respondent No.2 – State.

¶10

…. CORAM : K. U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : JULY 16, 2013.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

Heard.

¶13

2 Conviction recorded for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thane by order dated 23^rd

¶14

June, 2004, was questioned in Criminal Appeal No.48 of 2004, which was confirmed in the Appeal, is questioned in the revision.

¶15

3 The cheque amount was Rs.7,77,783/- (Rs. Seven

¶16

1/3

¶17

revn5-11

¶18

Lacs Seventy Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty Three only).

¶19

4 Both the Courts have analytically dealt with available material tendered by original complainant which include the copy of resolution (Exhibit-20), his cheque (Exhibit21), cheque returning memo (Exhibits- 22 and 23), copy of notice (Exhibit – 24), office copy of notice (Exhibit – 28), acknowledgment (Exhibit – 29) include notice Exhibit – 31. The evidence on behalf of the complainant was recorded.

¶20

5 The accused – applicant raised two pleas :

¶21

(a) The cheque when it was handed over was blank signed.

¶22

(b) The goods which the accused – applicant had received were returned to original complainant, consequently no legally enforceable liability.

¶23

6 The first stand raised by the accused – applicant

¶24

was elaborately dealt with by both the Courts. The second point

¶25

now raised, is not indicating to have been ignited either before the Court concerned or the Appellate Court. The learned counsel

¶26

2/3

¶27

revn5-11

¶28

says that it was argued before the Appellate Court. The learned First Appellate Court dealt with the issues in respect of non service of notice.

¶29

7 It is argued today, certain documents were tendered by the accused – applicant no.2 of his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which according to him should have been taken note of by the learned Sessions Judge.

¶30

8 The document to which repeated reference is given was not proved as required under the Indian Evidence Act. There was no prohibition for the accused – applicant to exercise rights under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or to examine himself on oath. It is not expected of the Court to deal with unexhibited, unproved documents. It could indeed be a surprise to original complainant.

¶31

9 No error in the concurrent findings recorded against the accused – applicant. The revision lacks merits. Dismissed. Criminal Application is also dismissed.

¶32

(K. U. CHANDIWAL, J.)

¶33

3/3

M/S. Infosys Autocad Systems (India) Ltd. and Anr. v. M/S. Tech Pacific (India) Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Infosys Autocad Systems (India) Ltd. and Anr. v. M/S. Tech Pacific (India) Ltd. 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

Jasmin Bhogilal Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

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

Union of India Vs Sanjeevkumar Amarnath Dhar and Ors.

Vithal @ Kalyan Abhijit Varekar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ajay Ganesh Ubale Vs Vir Sanghvi and Anr.