Dismissed

Dnyandeo S/O. Daulatrao Sanap v. Sainath S/O. Sudhakar Pawar

Bombay HC7 Feb 2019APPA/14/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal application filed for filing an appeal against an acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in a Summary Criminal Case, the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur Bench refused leave to appeal because the lower court found the applicant failed to prove financial capacity to lend the amount.

What did the court decide?

The criminal application for leave to file an appeal and the application itself are both rejected and disposed of.

Dnyandeo S/O. Daulatrao Sanap Vs Sainath S/O. Sudhakar Pawar — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

appa14.19 5

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO.14/2019 Dnyandeo s/o Daulatrao Sanap

¶5

..vs..

¶6

Sainath s/o Sudhakar Pawar

¶7

............................................................................................................................................................................................. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders

¶8

Shri A.J.Thakkar, Counsel for the applicant. Shri S.V.Bhuyar, Counsel for the non-applicant.

¶9

CORAM : V.M.DESHPANDE, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 7, 2019.

¶10

Heard learned counsel Shri A.J.Thakkar for the applicant and learned counsel Shri S.V.Bhuyar for the nonapplicant.

¶11

By the present application, leave is sought for filing an appeal challenging judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned Magistrate, Chikhali, District Buldana in Summary Criminal Case No.566/2012 whereby learned Magistrate acquitted the non-applicant of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

¶12

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the impugned judgment, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment inasmuch learned Magistrate found that the applicant could not demonstrate that he was having financial capacity to lend money to the tune of Rs.17,000/- to the non-applicant.

.....2/-

appa14.19 5

Learned counsel for the applicant invites my attention to last line of cross-examination of the applicant which is in the nature of suggestion given by the nonapplicant.

¶17

The criminal Trial is always open for the accused persons to take as many defence. Merely because he took a defence, it is not sufficient to record a finding of guilt. It is cardinal principle of the criminal law that the prosecution has to prove its case.

¶18

In the present case, since the applicant miserably failed as noted by learned Magistrate that he was having capacity to lend the money, no case is made out for grant of leave to file the appeal.

¶19

The criminal application and leave to file the appeal stand rejected.

¶20

The criminal application is disposed of accordingly.

¶21

JUDGE

¶22

!! BRW !!

¶23

...../-

Dnyandeo S/O. Daulatrao Sanap v. Sainath S/O. Sudhakar Pawar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dnyandeo S/O. Daulatrao Sanap v. Sainath S/O. Sudhakar Pawar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarang S/O. Subhash Yemde and Anr. Vs Sau. Swati W/O. Sarang Yemde

Vishal S/O. Murlidhar Gajbhiye Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Its P.S.O., P.S. Gondia

Sanjay S/O. Hargovindji Mantri(Ori. Complainant) Vs Gajanan Baliramji Maldure(Original Accused No. 1)

Geeta Bhimrao Khadke Vs Ashok Arjunrao Dhobale and Others

Vijay S/O. Devidas Attarkar and Others Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Police Station Officer Police Station Patur Dist. Akola

Raju @ Rajendra Bharat Kinnake Vs State of Maharashtra, P.S.O., P.S. Warora