Dismissed

Balwant Shripati Patil v. Gajnan Shripati Chougale and Anr.

Bombay HC15 Mar 2018ALP/198/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court rejected an application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. for leave to appeal against a trial court's acquittal on a cheque bounce case, finding no evidence of the alleged hand loan and holding the respondent successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 139.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. for leave to file appeal was rejected.

Balwant Shripati Patil Vs Gajnan Shripati Chougale and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 /2 7-alp-198-16

¶2

Nalawade

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 198 OF 2016 Balwant Shripati Patil vs. Gajanan S.Chougule and anr.

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memorandam of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or Court’s or Judge’s orders directions and Registrar’s orders

¶7

Mr.Chetan Patil for the applicant. Ms. R.M.Gadhavi, APP. for the RespondentState. Mr.A.A.Karande for Respondent No.1.

¶8

CORAM :A.S.GADKARI, J. DATE : 15^th March, 2018

¶9

P.C.

¶10

This is an application under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C.

¶11

for leave to file appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 10.5.2016 passed by the 7^th Judicial Magistrate First Class,

¶12

Kolhapur in SCC No 3863 of 2014 thereby acquitting the respondents for the offence punishable under Section138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶13

Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length and perused the record.

¶14

The record clearly indicates that the applicant has failed to establish the basic fact that, he in fact had advanced hand loan of Rs.3,26,000/ to the respondent. No documents to that effect have been produced by the applicant on record. As a

¶15

matter of fact, the applicant in his cross examination has given an admission that he does not have any document to prove the said fact that he had in fact advanced hand loan to the respondent. The defence of the respondent is two fold that, there is no legally enforceable debt or liability for issuance of the cheque in question and by taking undue advantage of the close friendship, the respondent had stolen the cheque in question and misused it for instituting the present complaint. After perusing the record, this Court is of the view that the respondent is successful in rebutting the presumption under Section139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶16

After perusing the entire record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the view adopted by the Trial Court is a reasonable and probable view in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶17

No case for grant of leave is made out.

¶18

Application is accordingly rejected.

¶19

(A.S.GADKARI, J.)

Balwant Shripati Patil v. Gajnan Shripati Chougale and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balwant Shripati Patil v. Gajnan Shripati Chougale and Anr.

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

Tatya Pandurang Gaikwad and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Altaf Habibkhan Pathan Vs the Inspector of Police and Ors.

Kiran Gorakshnath Jadhav Vs State of Maharashtra

Vijay Vitthal Sonawane Vs Mahalaxmi Iyyer Alias Mahalaxmi Joginder Singh Kahaan and Anr.

Madhavi Uday Divekar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Lalita Satishkumar Varma Vs M/S. Ruchit Machines and Ors.