Allowed

Shri Rameshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. Suruchi Kamlakar Samant

Bombay HC25 Sept 2017APPLN/2969/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the applicant's application for leave to file an appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. against the acquittal of accused no.4 only, dismissing the prayer to add the partnership firm accused no.1 due to delay. The appeal was admitted, notice issued (waived by respondent), and bail was directed.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; liberty granted to file appeal against acquittal of accused no.4 only; bail granted to accused no.4 under Section 390 Cr.P.C.

Shri Rameshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

Cri.Appln.2969/2016

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2969 OF 2016

¶5

Shri Rameshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., A body corporate constituted under the provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, having its factory and office premises at Raosaheb Nagar, Sipora (Bazar), Taluka Bhokardan, District Jalna, Through its Managing Director

¶6

..Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Suruchi Kamlakar Samant, Age 50 years, Occu. Business, A Partner of Partnership Firm, i.e. Swet Sarita Farm Products, having its office at `Anant Sagar’, Vijaywadi, Chalisgaon, District Jalgaon

¶9

..Respondent

¶10

Mr H.D. Deshmukh, Advocate for applicant Mr S.B. Yawalkar, Advocate for respondent

¶11

CORAM : A.M. DHAVALE, J.

¶12

DATE : 25^th September 2017

¶13

PER COURT

¶14

The original complainant under Section 378 (4) of Cr.P.C. seeks leave to file appeal against acquittal of accused no. 4 in Summary Criminal Case No.158 of 2014, decided by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chalisgaon by judgment dated 27.4.2016. In this case, accused no.1 is Partnership firm consisting of two partners accused no.3 and 4 while accused no.2 is Chief Executive Officer of the firm. In connection with supply of raw sugar of 5000 metric ton, Bank guarantee of Rs.1,30,89,000/- was given and since there was no supply of raw sugar, a cheque of Rs.1,46,42,100/- was issued by the

¶15

Cri.Appln.2969/2016

¶16

¶17

firm which was signed by accused no.2. Accused no.3 as a partner had executed the agreement and had correspondence in the transaction. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class accepted the complainant’s case to hold accused nos.1 to 3 guilty, but no punishment is awarded to accused no.1, which is a partnership firm. As far as accused no.4 is concerned, her plea that she was sleeping partner was considered and it was held that there was no material to show that she was in-charge of the management of the firm and was responsible for day to day activities.

¶18

Mr Deshmukh, learned Advocate for the applicant relied on the ratio in Standard Chartered Bank Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors., 2016 AIR (SC) 1750 and pointed out that the complaint contains the necessary averments regarding the role of accused no.4 as well and the burden was on accused no.4.

¶19

After hearing learned Advocate Mr Yawalkar for the respondent, I find that the applicant has arguable case against accused no.4, whereas there is a very strong case against accused no.1. Therefore, application deserves to be allowed and the appeal deserves to be admitted.

¶20

It is, however, pointed out that the accused no.1 has not been made a party and there is no prayer for convicting accused no.1. Hence, oral request for amendment to add respondent no.1 as a party after a period of one year and three months in the light of grounds of appeal cannot be permitted.

¶21

Cri.Appln.2969/2016

¶22

¶23

Hence, the application is allowed. Liberty granted to file appeal against acquittal of accused no.4 only.

¶24

The appeal is admitted. Issue notice to the respondent. Learned Counsel Mr Yawalkar waives notice for respondent. Learned trial Judge is directed to grant bail to accused no.4 under Section 390 of Cr.P.C. on such terms and conditions, as he deems fit.

¶25

Record and Proceedings be sent to the trial Court for the time being.

¶26

( A.M. DHAVALE, J.)

¶27

vvr

Shri Rameshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. Suruchi Kamlakar Samant

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Rameshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. Suruchi Kamlakar Samant

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharashtra Vs Sunil Parshuram Verma

The State of Maharashtra Vs Baliram Mahadeo Jogdand and Other

Kantilal Ratanlal Chavan Vs Dudhnath Ramdas Chavan

The State of Maharashtra Vs Vikramsinh Dattusinh Chauhan

The State of Maharashtra Vs Sitaram Devade and Ors.

Vishwanath S/O Parashram Khambalkra Vs Prathmesh S/O Vishwanath Khambalkar and Anr.