Common order dismissing three criminal writ petitions challenging the issuance of process under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court held that material on record exists to proceed and this is not the stage for considering defence documents at this level.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
wps246-248
1/3
Dusane
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.246 OF 2017
Kalpesh Velji Satra .... Petitioner (Ori. accused) Vs. M/s Shambhulal A. Shah & Co. .... Respondents & Anr. (Ori. complainant)
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.247 OF 2017
Haresh Velji Satra .... Petitioner (Ori. accused) Vs. M/s Shambhulal A. Shah & Co. .... Respondents & Anr. (Ori. complainant)
WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.248 OF 2017
Bharat Velji Satra .... Petitioner (Ori. accused) Vs. M/s Shambhulal A. Shah & Co. .... Respondents & Anr. (Ori. complainant)
Mr. R.A. Sorwankar i/by Sorwankar & Co., Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Prerak Choudhary, Advocate for Respondent no.1.
wps246-248
Dusane 2/3 wps246-248 Mr. V.V. Gangurde, APP for the respondent- State in WP No.246 of 2017.
Mr. S.R. Agarkar, APP for the respondent- State in WP No. 247 of 2017
Ms. N.S. Jain, A.P.P. for the respondent- State in WP No. 248 of 2017.
Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. Date : 14th February, 2017
P.C.
1 This is a common order on the above three petitions filed to challenge the order of issuance of process by the trial court in the proceedings filed under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act and the order dtd. 28th December, 2016 passed by the Sessions Court in the Criminal Revision Applications filed by the petitioners against the orders of issuance of process. It is contended by the petitioners that while the complainant does not disclose the date on which the cheques have been presented for payment, the certificate issued to them by their banker shows that the cheques had been presented for payment by the respondent beyond the period of three months. Therefore, the proceedings filed under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be maintained. According to them, on perusal of the different documents produced by them, an inference can be drawn that the cheques had been presented for payment belatedly. This is not the stage for consideration of the documents relied upon by the petitioner which are in support of the defence of the petitioner's to trial. Perusal of the record
Dusane
3/3
wps246-248
shows that this is not the case where it can be said that there is no material on record to proceed against the applicant. Hence, the petitions are dismissed.
(Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal writ petition challenging the issuance of process under Section 138 can be allowed based solely on the petitioner's contention regarding the belated presentation of cheques withou
Whether the present stage of proceedings is appropriate for considering documents relied upon in support of the petitioner's defence against the presentation period.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kalpesh Velji Satra
Haresh Velji Satra
Bharat Velji Satra
M/s Shambhulal A. Shah & Co.
R.P. SondurBaldota
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
