Partly allowed

Gulabi Narayan Pujari v. Shilpa Sadashiv Shetty and Anr.

Bombay HC14 Aug 2013REVN/44/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision regarding a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for cheque dishonour, the Single Judge found no error in the Lower Courts' application of law or appreciation of evidence. The Court held that a compromise by depositing the difference could lead to termination of the conviction.

What did the court decide?

Termination of conviction if the balance amount of Rs.50,000/- is deposited by September 30, 2013; otherwise, the consequences of the conviction remain.

Gulabi Narayan Pujari Vs Shilpa Sadashiv Shetty and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2013)

1/3

revn44-13.sxw

Pvr

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATON NO.44 OF 2013

¶7

Gulabi Narayan Pujari. …Applicant. versus 1.Shila Sadashiv Shetty & Anr. ...Respondents

¶8

Mr.Irfan A.Shaikh, for Applicant.

¶9

Mr.Pramod Y.Keni i/b. Thakordas & Madgavkar, for Respondent no.1.

¶10

Mr.A.R.Patil, APP for State-Respondent no.2.

¶11

--- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 14^th AUGUST, 2013

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

Revision applicant has deposited Rs.1,50,000/- before Trial Court and Rs.50,000/- in this Court on 6.2.2013. The original complainant is at liberty to withdraw the deposited amount.

¶14

The concurrent findings for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are questioned. The cheque amount was Rs.3,00,000/- as against loan of Rs.2,50,000/- advanced allegedly to the applicant in the year 2004 for which the questioned cheque was issued of the year 2006. There is no controversy of issuance of statutory notice under

2/3

revn44-13.sxw

Pvr

Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and was served upon revision applicant and there was no response to it. The gravamen of submissions from the learned Counsel is, (a) The cheque was only a signed instrument, it was given as security for chit fund activity (bhisi) conducted by original complainant; (b) There was no legally enforceable liability to brand responsibility against the applicant; (c) both the Courts have not properly appreciated the evidence.

¶19

The scope of revision is limited. However, since the learned Counsel repeats of non application of mind of both the Courts, at his instance, evidence of complainant and of the accused-applicant was scanned. When the accused applicant comes with the defence of complainant conducting a chit fund (bhisi) in ordinary parlance, it was expected of the applicant to explain what was such chit fund (bhisi) conducted by the complainant or who were members thereof. For all these aspects, the accused-applicant pleaded ignorance.

¶20

On the point of applicability of interest, there is specific reference in the complaint petition. There could not be a calculation with accurate rate of interest, considering the relation the parties had. If lumpsum amount of Rs.50,000/-, added for a period of one year for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-, there is no legal inhibition for such exercise. The said

3/3

revn44-13.sxw

Pvr

admission by the complainant that simply it was a hand loan without interest, does not mean that she is debarred for staking claims for damages / interest.

¶25

Having gone through both the orders, I do not see any error of application of law and also appreciation of evidence.

¶26

Revision applicant has deposited Rs.1,50,000/- before Trial Court and Rs.50,000/- in this Court. If the revision applicant deposits balance amount of Rs.50,000/- upto 30^th September,2013 in this Court, the conviction which is otherwise well reasoned, shall stand terminated, else the revision applicant shall face consequence. The revision accordingly disposed of.

¶27

If the amount is deposited, original complainant is at liberty to withdraw the same.

¶28

(K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.)

Gulabi Narayan Pujari v. Shilpa Sadashiv Shetty and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulabi Narayan Pujari v. Shilpa Sadashiv Shetty 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

Sanjay Shankar Sagale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Devi Shivanesan and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mohd Shahid Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sachin Annaso Chudappa Vs Hdfc Bank Ltd. and Anr.

Mahaveer Bapu Khot Vs Ajit Appasaheb Vagyani and Anr.

Nilkanth C. Joshi and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.