Allowed

Manjur Pragat Shetkari Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit v. Baburao Kashinath Kharde.

Bombay HC21 Sept 2017APPLN/2407/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, on behalf of an original complainant in a cheque-bounce case, allowed a plea under Section 378(4) CrPC to admit leave of appeal against an order of acquittal. The court issued notice to the respondent and directed the trial judge to comply with Section 390 CrPC regarding the recording of appeal statements.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal admitted; notice issued to respondent; letter issued to trial Judge for compliance of Section 390 CrPC.

Manjur Pragat Shetkari Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Sanstha… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

905-cra-2407-2016

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

905 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2407 OF 2016

¶5

MANJUR PRAGAT SHETKARI VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHAKARI SANSTHA

¶6

Versus

¶7

BABURAO KASHINATH KHARDE

¶8

Mr. D.R. Menkar h/f Mr. N.K. Kakade , Advocate for Respondent.

¶9

CORAM : A. M. DHAVALE, J. DATED : 21.09.2017

¶10

ORDER :-

¶11

This is an Application filed by the Applicant-original complainant under Section 378 (4) of Criminal Procedure Code, for leave to appeal against judgment of acquittal in S.T.C. No. 671/2007, dated 11.1.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmedngar.

¶12

None present for the Applicant.

¶13

Heard learned counsel Mr. D.R. Menkar for the

¶14

Respondent. The record and proceedings of the trial Court and judgment shows that there was transaction of loan, in which, the

¶15

905-cra-2407-2016 (2)

¶16

Respondent (member) has taken loan from the Applicant – original complainant Co-operative Society and the Cheque of Rs. 1,45,000/- dated 21.08.2007 was issued and dishonored. Despite service of notice, the Respondent did not make payment hence the complaint was filed.

¶17

The acquittal is based on a no due certificate and deletion of entry of loan from the 7/12 extract.

¶18

The Applicant-original complainant led evidence that the said letter was forged one and the complaint is filed about the same. The Talathi has stated that the said letter was produced by the Respondent-accused and he had not idea who had issued it. The Respondent-accused had not replied the notice. The complainant has produced the extract of account showing outstanding amount from the Respondent-accused. The accused has not led evidence to show that the loan was totally cleared.

¶19

Considering the facts that this is a fit case for admission, the Application is allowed. Leave granted. The Appeal

¶20

905-cra-2407-2016 (3)

¶21

is admitted. Issue notice to the Respondent. Issue letter to trial Judge for compliance of provision of Section 390 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

¶22

[A. M. DHAVALE, J]

¶23

Sam..

Manjur Pragat Shetkari Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit v. Baburao Kashinath Kharde.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjur Pragat Shetkari Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit v. Baburao Kashinath Kharde.

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

Sudhakar Baburao Ingle Vs the State of Maharashtra

Yuvraj Chango Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ginyandeo Shrirang Phad and Ors. Vs State of Maha

Nivrutti Sarjerao Devre Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Maharudra S/O Jijaba Gadekar Vs Mohan S/O Sukhdev Padwal

Kantilal Ratanlal Chavan Vs Dudhnath Ramdas Chavan