Allowed

Govind S/O. Santosh Gandhi v. Vishal S/O. Ganesh Wagh

Bombay HC7 Jun 2017APEAL/260/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenges an order acquitting the appellant under Section 138 of the NI Act. The Court held that the lower court erred in not applying statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139. The appeal was allowed, the acquittal set aside, and the respondent convicted.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment set aside; respondent convicted under Section 138 NI Act; fine of Rs. 2,20,000/- imposed; default imprisonment for two years.

Govind S/O. Santosh Gandhi Vs Vishal S/O. Ganesh Wagh — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

1 appa432.14

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO.432/2014 IN

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.260/2017 Govind S/o Santosh Gandhi ..Vs..

¶5

Vishal S/o Ganesh Wagh

¶6

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶8

Court's or Judge's orders

¶9

¶10

CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J. DATE : 7.6.2017.

¶11

None appeared for the applicant when the matter is called out. Heard Shri N.R. Tekade, Advocate for the non-applicant.

¶12

By this application the applicant seeks leave to file appeal to challenge the judgment passed by the learned Magistrate by which complaint filed by the applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is dismissed and the non-applicant is acquitted. Considering the facts of the case prima facie, the applicant is granted leave to file appeal. Criminal application is allowed accordingly.

¶13

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.260/2017

¶14

As the matter is pending since 2014, the appeal is taken up for hearing.

¶15

Heard Shri N.R. Tekade, Advocate for the respondent. The facts of the case show that it is

¶16

2 appa432.14

¶17

undisputed that the respondent had given cheque for the value of Rs.1,10,000/- dated 30^th May, 2011 to the appellant. According to the appellant the cheque was given to repay the amount which was taken by the respondent from the appellant towards hand loan. According to the appellant the relationship between the appellant and the respondent had been cordial.

¶18

There is no dispute that on presentation of the cheque in question it was not honoured as sufficient funds were not in deposit of the account of the respondent. It is undisputed that the appellant had issued notice which was received by the respondent within specified time and inspite of notice the respondent had not repaid the amount. It is undisputed that the respondent had not given reply to the notice.

¶19

After conducting the trial, the learned Magistrate recorded that the complainant has failed to prove that the cheque was given by the accused to the complainant to discharge legally enforceable liability. The learned Magistrate has committed patent error by recording the above conclusions, overlooking the provisions of Section 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which create a statutory presumption that the cheque issued by a person is for discharge of legally enforceable debt or liability unless the person who has issued the cheque proves that the cheque was not given to discharge legally enforceable liability. The respondent who issued the cheque should have pleaded and proved that the cheque was not given to discharge

¶20

3 appa432.14

¶21

the legally enforceable liability. The learned Advocate for the respondent has not been able to point out any evidence led by the respondent to discharge the burden of proving that the cheque was not issued to repay legally enforceable debt. In view of the above, I find that the impugned judgment is unsustainable.

¶22

Hence, the following order:

¶23

(i) The impugned judgment is set aside. (ii) It is held that the respondent is guilty of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

¶24

(iii) The respondent is directed to pay fine of Rs.2,20,000/- (Rs. Two Lakhs Twenty Thousand). The amount of fine shall be paid till 5^th July, 2017.

¶25

(iv) On deposit of amount of fine, Rs.2,10,000/(Rs. Two Lakhs Ten Thousand) be given to the appellant / complainant.

¶26

(v) In default of payment of fine within stipulated time, the respondent shall undergo simple imprisonment for two years.

¶27

(vi) The respondent shall pay costs of Rs.10,000/(Rs. Ten Thousand) to the appellant till 5^th July, 2017. (vii) The appeal is allowed in the above terms.

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

Tambaskar .

Govind S/O. Santosh Gandhi v. Vishal S/O. Ganesh Wagh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govind S/O. Santosh Gandhi v. Vishal S/O. Ganesh Wagh

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 S/O Hiraman Yende Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. P.S.O. P.S.

Bharat Motors, Prop. Arvind v. Khandekar Thr. P.O.A. Holder Shri Bhagirath P. Kawadkar Vs Murlidhar S/O Jaykisan Paliwal

State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. Durgapur, Chandrapur Vs Sanjay Singh S/O Vijay Singh and Others

Manoj S/O. Shrigovind Agrawal and Another Vs State of Maharashtra through P.S.O., City Chandrapur

Rameshwar Uttam Chavhan and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Police Station Officer Lonar Police Station Lonar

Smt.Anusaya W/O Punjabrao Ramde and 5 Ors. Vs Nagpur Parishad, Throguh Its Chief Officer, Kamptee and Another