Dismissed

Yogesh S/O. Vinayakrao Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC20 Mar 2019WP/93/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, dismissed a criminal writ petition challenging the rejection of an application to send a receipt to a handwriting expert during a Section 138 NI Act trial, upholding the sub-courts refusal as substantiated by suspicious production timing.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the rule stands discharged.

Yogesh S/O. Vinayakrao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

cwp93.19

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.93 OF 2019

¶6

Yogesh s/o Vinayakrao Patil,
Age-43 years, Occu:Service,
R/o-Plot No.30, A-5, N-4, Parijat
Nagar, Near M.S. Public School,
Aurangabad.

¶7

...PETITIONER
 VERSUS

¶8

1) The State of Maharashtra,
 Through Investigation Officer,
 Mukundwadi Police Station,
 Aurangabad,

¶9

2) Balu Vinayak Kadam,

¶10

 Age-38 years, Occu:Service,
 R/o-Plot No.5-A, Vajreshavar nagar,
 Harsul, Pisadevi Road,

¶11

 Aurangabad.

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

 Mr.V.S. Janephalkar Advocate for Petitioner.
 Mr.S.Y. Mahajan, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1.
 Mr.C.K. Shinde Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶14

...

¶15

CORAM: V.M. DESHPANDE, J.

¶16

 DATE : 20TH MARCH, 2019

¶17

cwp93.19

¶18

¶19

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶20

1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and
heard finally with the consent of the learned
counsel appearing for the parties.

¶21

2.Heard Shri Janephalkar, the learned

¶22

counsel for the Petitioner, Shri S.Y. Mahajan, the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
and Shri C.K. Shinde, the learned counsel for the
original complainant/ Respondent No.2.

¶23

3.By the present Writ Petition, the

¶24

Petitioner is challenging the order passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court
No.3, Aurangabad, below Exhibit-50 in S.C.C.
No.563 of 2017, whereby, the application filed on
behalf of the Petitioner for sending the document
“money receipt” to the handwriting expert, is
rejected.

¶25

cwp93.19

¶26

¶27

4. Few facts before reaching to the final

¶28

verdict are required to be detailed in the present
order.

¶29

5. Respondent No.2 is the original

¶30

complainant and the Petitioner is the accused, who
is facing the prosecution for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act. After the particulars were
explained to the Petitioner/accused, the trial
proceeded further. Respondent No.2 entered into
witness box to prove his case against the
Petitioner. After his examination-in-chief, he was
thoroughly cross-examined by the counsel for the
Petitioner. Thereafter, Respondent No.2 also
produced the evidence of his witnesses. They were
also thoroughly cross-examined. After completion
of the evidence from the complainant side, the

¶31

complainant filed closure purshis. Thereafter,

¶32

cwp93.19

¶33

¶34

learned JudicialMagistrate examinedthe
Petitioner under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. In the said, he stated that he
wish to adduce evidence. Accordingly, on behalf of
the accused person, two witnesses were examined.
After the completion of the evidence of the
Petitioner/accused, he produced one receipt,
styled as “compromise receipt”, which is taken on
record and it is at Exhibit-50. The learned

¶35

Magistrate, in my view, thereafter correctly
recalled the complainant. The complainant re-

¶36

entered in the witness box and he was also cross-
examined. He denied his signature on the said
document. At this stage, the application for
sending the document to handwriting expert was
moved and the said request is turned down.

¶37

6.It appears that the Petitioner is a

¶38

person who appears to have tendency to take

¶39

chances. During the course of the cross-

¶40

cwp93.19

¶41

¶42

examination of the complainant, it was available
for the Petitioner to produce the said receipt,
however, the said was not filed on record.
Thereafter also when he was examined under Section
313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that time
also, inspite of opportunity being given to him,
the said was not availed of, and after completion
of his defence evidence, he produced the document
in question. Thus, the production of the document
in question itself is suspicious circumstance, in
my view. It appears that the Petitioner is trying
his level best to prolong the litigation by
resorting to the method like filing the
applications after the evidence was closed. The
learned Magistrate has considered the application
on its own merits and found that the application
was devoid of any substance and therefore it was
rejected. I am of the opinion that, no different
view can be taken, as taken by the learned
Magistrate.

¶43

cwp93.19

¶44

¶45

8.Consequently, there is no merit in the

¶46

Petition. The Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule

¶47

stands discharged.

¶48

asb/MAR19

Yogesh S/O. Vinayakrao Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesh S/O. Vinayakrao Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Namdev S/O. Vishnu Shelke Vs the State of Maharashtra

Arjun S/O. Vikram Badhe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rajendra Bhaurao Deshmukh Vs Jyoti Rajendra Deshmukh

Vitthal S/O Digambar Dake Vs the State of Maharashra and Others

The State of Maharashtra Vs Vithal S/O. Pandurang Dhage

Tulshiram S/O. Fakirrao Sonwane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.