Dismissed

Radhyesham Gopikishan and Company v. M/S Kashmirilal Manojkumar Jalna and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Jan 2016APEAL/507/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In three criminal appeals by the complainant challenging acquittals of the respondents under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the High Court held that no interference was warranted as the trial court reasoned correctly based on documentary evidence showing the respondent was not the signatory to the dishonoured cheques.

What did the court decide?

The three criminal appeals were dismissed, leaving the acquittal of the respondents intact.

Radhyesham Gopikishan and Company Vs M/S Kashmirilal… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

criapl505-2004-group

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 505 OF 2004

¶5

Radhyeshm Gopikishan and
Company, through its Partner
Shri. Radhyesham Gopikishan Agrawal,
Age : 55 years, (Now about 62 years)
Occu.: Business, r/o Dr. Rajendra
Prasad Road, Sadar Bazar, Jalna,
Taluka and District Jalna

¶6

APPELLANT

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1.M/s Kashmirilal Manojkumar Jalna
through its proprietor
Shri Kashmirilal s/o Harising Gupta,
age : about 62 years, Occ.: Business,
r/o.: Bharat Nagar, Jalna, Taluka
and District Jalna

¶9

2.Kashmirilal s/o Harising Gupta,
age about 62 years, Occ.: Business,
r/o.: Bharat Nagar, Jalna,
Tq. and Dist. Jalna

¶10

3. The State of Maharashtra

¶11

RESPONDENTS

¶12

AND

¶13

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 506 OF 2004

¶14

Radhyeshm Gopikishan and
Compnay, through its Partner
Shri. Radhyesham Gopikishan Agrawal,
Age : 55 years, (Now about 62 years)
Occu.: Business, r/o Dr. Rajendra
Prasad Road, Sadar Bazar, Jalna,
Taluka and District JalnaAPPELLANT

criapl505-2004-group

VERSUS

1. M/s Kashmirilal Manojkumar Jalna through its proprietor Shri Kashmirilal s/o Harising Gupta, age : about 62 years, Occ.: Business, r/o.: Bharat Nagar, Jalna, Taluka and District Jalna

¶19

2. Kashmirilal s/o Harising Gupta, age about 62 years, Occ.: Business, r/o.: Bharat Nagar, Jalna, Tq. and Dist. Jalna

¶20

3. The State of Maharashtra

¶21

RESPONDENTS

¶22

AND

¶23

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 507 OF 2004

¶24

Radhyeshm Gopikishan and
Compnay, through its Partner
Shri. Radhyesham Gopikishan Agrawal,
Age : 55 years, (Now about 62 years)
Occu.: Business, r/o Dr. Rajendra
Prasad Road, Sadar Bazar, Jalna,
Taluka and District Jalna

¶25

APPELLANT

¶26

VERSUS

¶27

1.M/s Kashmirilal Manojkumar Jalna
through its proprietor
Shri Kashmirilal s/o Harising Gupta,
age : about 62 years, Occ.: Business,
r/o.: Bharat Nagar, Jalna, Taluka
and District Jalna

¶28

2.Kashmirilal s/o Harising Gupta,
age about 62 years, Occ.: Business,
r/o.: Bharat Nagar, Jalna,
Tq. and Dist. Jalna

¶29

3. The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENTS

¶30

criapl505-2004-group

¶31

¶32

Mr. P.H. Mehta, Advocate for the appellant
in all the appeals

¶33

Ms. Chinmayee Deshpande, Advocate h/f Mr. S.V. Natu,
Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2 in all the appeals
Mr. R.B. Bagul, A.P.P. for the respondent-State, in all
the appeals

¶34

 CORAM: M.T. JOSHI, J.
 DATE : 06/01/2016

¶35

ORAL JUDGEMENT :

¶36

1. Heard both sides.

¶37

2.Aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondents
from the offence punishable under section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, the present three appeals
are preferred by the original complainant.

¶38

3.The submissions from both the sides as well as
the record would show that the present appellants had
filed five complaints alleging therein that the
respondent no.2 had drawn five distinct cheques in
favour of the complainant towards the payment of price
of grain, purchased for respondent no.1. All the five
cheques were dishonoured. Therefore, the five complaints
came to be filed. The legal requirements of issuance of

¶39

4 criapl505-2004-group

¶40

notice, service of the same and the return of the

¶41

cheques due to insufficiency of funds, are there on
record. The respondent however was acquitted in all the
cases. The present appeals pertain to three cases.

¶42

4.The defence of the respondent was that

¶43

respondent no.2 was not the proprietor of respondent no.
1 and the cheques did not bear his signature. Thus,

¶44

according to respondent no.2, he was not at all
concerned with respondent no.1 firm.

¶45

5.The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,

¶46

found that the oral evidence of the appellant
/complainant is not reliable in view of the documentary
evidence at exhibit-100 by the respondent no.2 on
record. While recording the common evidence, it was
brought on record that the respondent no.1 firm was
being operated by one Manojkumar Kashmirilal Agrawal and
not the respondent no.2. Not only this, the branch

¶47

manager of the bank examined by the complainant/

¶48

appellant had also admitted that the signatures
appearing on the cheques are put by Manojkumar

¶49

Kashmirilal Agrawal and not by the present respondent
no.2.

¶50

criapl505-2004-group

¶51

¶52

6.Upon hearing both sides, in my view, since
reasonable and probable view has been taken by the
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class based on the
material placed before him and more particularly the
documentary evidence, as detailed supra, no interference
in the reasoning is warranted. All the three appeals are
therefore dismissed.

¶53

 Sd/-
[M.T. JOSHI]
 JUDGE

¶54

npj/criapl505-2004-group

Radhyesham Gopikishan and Company v. M/S Kashmirilal Manojkumar Jalna and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhyesham Gopikishan and Company v. M/S Kashmirilal Manojkumar Jalna and Ors.

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

Shaikh Yusuf S/O Shaikh Osman and Others Vs Farheen W/O Shaikh Yusuf and Others

Pandurang Laxman Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pandurang S/O Rajaram Gangane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ismail S/O Anwar Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Radhyesham Gopikishan and Company Vs M/S Kashmirilal Manojkumar Jalna and Ors.

Radhyesham Gopikishan and Company Vs M/S Kashmirilal Manojkumar and Ors.