Dismissed

Manik Anna Khot v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC20 Aug 2013REVN/78/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a revision seeking leave to prosecute under Section 138 NI Act after a Sessions Court convicted the accused. The court upheld the conviction, noting the judge's finding on evidence that a legally enforceable monetary liability existed.

What did the court decide?

The application for leave to prosecute was dismissed; the conviction under Section 138 NI Act was allowed.

Manik Anna Khot Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

revn-78-12

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

rpa

¶4

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 78 OF 2012

¶5

Manik Anna Khot .. Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents

¶8

Mr. Neel G. Helkar, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. S. S. Pednekar, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1 – State.

¶9

CORAM : K. U. CHANDIWAL, J.

¶10

DATED : AUGUST 20, 2013.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

Heard.

¶13

2 Feeling aggrieved by reversing the conviction in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sindhudurg at Oros in criminal Appeal No.17 of 2007, dated 16^th December, 2011, original complainant is before this Court seeking leave in

¶14

the revision.

¶15

3 The theory advanced by the complainant is husband

¶16

1/3

¶17

revn-78-12

¶18

of respondent was his colleague. The couple needed financial assistance to develop their property and consequently he lent Rs.3,50,000/- (Rs. Three Lacs Fifty Thousand only) as a hand loan. In discharge of said liability the subject cheque was issued which on presentation was dishonoured followed by statutory notice which was not replied by respondent – accused, hence he prosecuted the respondent – accused Smt. Shraddha.

¶19

4 Before the learned Judge evidence of complainant and the accused – respondent was advanced. She was thoroughly cross – examined. Conviction was recorded by the learned Judge awarding compensation of Rs.3,95,000/- (Rs. Three Lacs Ninety Five Thousand only) for cheque of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rs. Three Lacs Fifty Thousand only).

¶20

5 On analysis of evidence, I find, the complainant miserably failed to establish that there was legally enforceable liability or a monetary transaction between him and respondent Smt. Shraddha. One of the limb of submission was, a loan of Rs.3,25,000/- (Rs. Three Lacs Twenty Five Thousand only) was obtained by Smt. Shraddha from Ratnagiri Co-operative Bank

¶21

2/3

¶22

and for discharging said loan as a guarantor by complainant, the cheque in question was issued. However, there was no evidence to illustrate that indeed such loan was repaid or reimbursed by the complainant for and on behalf of Smt. Shraddha. Reference to examination-in-chief of the respondent Smt. Shraddha, by the learned counsel, cannot be read in isolation, to advance his submission, as entire evidence, depict a picture of no monetary transaction between the complainant with said Smt. Shraddha.

¶23

6 It was under coercion that the cheque in question was issued. The contents in the cheque were filled in by the complainant as they were not in the hand writing of the accused. However, that will not absolve the consequence of the cheque. Even not responding statutory notice, will not brand the accused – respondent Smt. Sharddha with liability. Findings recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge was on reappreciation of evidence, and logically carried on. I do not see any error in it to disrupt the same. Revision Application is dismissed. No costs.

¶24

3/3

Manik Anna Khot v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manik Anna Khot 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

Ankita Amod Rele Vs Rahul Dada Mane

Johnson Nadar Vs Elia Pradeep Samuel and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Sani Madan Kuttapan

The State of Maharashtra Vs Dhanpal Babgonda Patil

Bhagyashree Krida Mandal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vijay Kala Krida Va Sanskrutik Mandal Vs Inspector of Police and Anr.