Dismissed

Suresh S/O. Gangasingh Chauhan v. Rajendra S/O. Ganpat Rahangdale

Bombay HC15 Feb 2019APPA/144/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal application, the High Court of Judicature at Nagpur considered an application seeking leave to file an appeal against the acquittal of the respondent in a cheque dishonour case. The High Court refused leave to file the appeal and rejected the application, thereby upholding the acquittal by the lower court.

What did the court decide?

Leave to file appeal is refused; application and appeal are rejected; acquittal stands upheld.

Suresh S/O. Gangasingh Chauhan Vs Rajendra S/O. Ganpat… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

appa144.19.odt

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.144/2019

¶5

Suresh s/o Gangasingh Chauhan .vs. Rajendra s/o Ganpat Rahangadale

¶6

_______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders.

¶7

Mr. V. R. Borkar, Advocate for applicant.

¶8

CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 15, 2019

¶9

This is an application seeking leave to file appeal challenging judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First class, Tirora, Dated 22.03.2018 in summary Criminal Case No.606/2012 by which the learned Magistrate acquitted the non applicant of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶10

I have heard Mr. V. R. Borkar, learned counsel for the applicant.

¶11

According to the complaint, applicant and non applicant were well acquainted with each other and the non applicant was in financial need for purchasing plot. Therefore, he obtained hand loan of Rs.2,86,000/-. For repayment of the said amount, as per the complaint, the applicant gave a cheque i.e. the disputed cheque. However, the said cheque was not honoured by the non applicant's banker. Therefore, the complaint was lodged.

¶12

Three witnesses were examined by complainant. The Court below, after appreciating the evidence, found that

¶13

2 appa144.19.odt

¶14

the applicant could not prove that he was having substantial sum to lend the same to the non applicant. The Court below, therefore, acquitted the non applicant.

¶15

By now, law for consideration of an appeal against acquittal is well crystallized. Merely because another view is possible, the appellate Court should not substitute its own view in place of the view taken by the Court below, if it is noticed by the Court below that the view taken by the Court below is based on available material in the prosecution case.

¶16

In that view of the matter, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. Hence, leave to file appeal is refused and application is rejected. Consequently, the appeal is also rejected.

¶17

JUDGE

¶18

kahale

Suresh S/O. Gangasingh Chauhan v. Rajendra S/O. Ganpat Rahangdale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh S/O. Gangasingh Chauhan v. Rajendra S/O. Ganpat Rahangdale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O., P.S. Kurha Vs Pintu@ Dinesh Sudhakar Khedkar

Suklal S/O. Amarlal Salam Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O. Katol, Nagpur

Jugal Vilas Madavi and Othr. Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. P.S. Ghatanji

Maroti S/O. Shankar Barsagade Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O. Chamorshi Dist. Gadchiroli

Guddu @ Santosh Chaitu Pungati and Others (in Jail) Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O. Chamorshi Dist. Gadchiroli

Jaikisan Gajanan Mohod Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O., P.S. Telhara