Dismissed

Anuja Dharmesh Mehendale v. M/S. Chaitanya Kanifnath Steel Corporation Thr Sanjay Bajirao Markad and Anr.

Bombay HC6 Sept 2021APL/514/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court dismissed an application challenging the trial court's refusal to recall a bank official for re-examination and to summon another bank official, holding that the trial court correctly found that summoning the second official would merely result in repetition of evidence.

What did the court decide?

Both criminal applications were rejected and disposed of accordingly.

Anuja Dharmesh Mehendale Vs M/S. Chaitanya Kanifnath Steel… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1/7

¶2

APL-523-2021
& APL-514-2021

¶3

Rane

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 523 OF 2021
ALONGW ITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 514 OF 2021

¶6

Anuja Dharmesh Mehendale
V/s.

¶7

… .Applicant

¶8

1. M/s. Chaitanya Kanifnath
Steel Corporation and anr. … ..Respondents

¶9

* * * *

¶10

Mr. Sujay H. Gangal a/w. Mr. Gaurav H. Gangal, Advocate
for the applicant.

¶11

Mr. Harshvardhan G. Khambata i/by. Ms. Ankita Pawar,
Advocate for respondent no.1.

¶12

Mr. Anand Patil, APP for State-respondent no.2.

¶13

CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.

¶14

6TH SEPTEMBER, 2021.

¶15

P.C. :

¶16

1. Applicant has challenged two orders; one dated

¶17

25th March, 2021 and another dated 6th April, 2021 in SCC-

¶18

2/7

¶19

APL-523-2021
& APL-514-2021

¶20

Rane

¶21

4410/2017; passed by the 8th Judicial Magistrate First

¶22

Class, Kolhapur.

¶23

. Factual matrix :

¶24

2. Applicant-Original Complainant instituted

¶25

proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, against the respondent. In the year 2015,
respondent was undergoing financial crisis. Applicant lent
Rs.12,00,000/- (Rs. Twelve Lakhs) to him as a handloan.
He transferred Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten lakhs) on 26th
August, 2015 and Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs. Two Lakhs) on 28th

¶26

October, 2015 from his Federal Bank Account,
Lakshmipura Branch, Kolhapur in the Account of accused,

¶27

HDFC Bank, Pimpri, Pune Branch, through RTGS.
Although the respondent had issued the cheques towards
repayment of handloan, the same were returned “unpaid”
with remark “funds insufficient”. Whereafter applicant
instituted SCC No.4414/2017 against the respondent. The

¶28

Rane3/7 APL-523-2021
& APL-514-2021

¶29

applicant adduced evidence of Bank Official of Federal
Bank and brought on record NEFT Inward Report Exhibit-
54 and RTGS Outward Report Exhibit-55. These two
documents, exhibit, amount being transferred on the
relevant dates from the Account of the complainant in the
Account of the accused. Manager of Federal Bank, Mr.
Sachin Molekar proved these documents, whose evidence
was recorded on 23rd February, 2021. Whereafter the
complainant closed his evidence, followed by statement of
accused recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal
Procedure Code on 20th March, 2021. Soon thereafter,

¶30

matter was posted for oral arguments under Section 314 of
the Criminal Procedure Code. At this stage, complainant
moved an application under Section 313 to recall Mr.
Sachin Molekar, (P.W.4), Bank Official for re-examination.
Applicant sought his re-examination on the ground that,
apparently while cross-examination, suggestions given to
the P.W.4 were recorded as “admissions”. To understand,

¶31

4/7 APL-523-2021
& APL-514-2021

¶32

Rane

¶33

the applicant’s case, it would be appropriate to reproduce
his cross-examination.

¶34

“ gs Eg.k.ks [kjs vkgs dh] ,ub,QVh buoMZ fjiksVZ e/;s fQ;kZnhyk vkjksihdMwu feGkysY;k jDdekapk mYys[k vkgs- gs Eg.k.ks [kjs ukgh dh] eh nk[ky dsysys fu- 54 o 55 ojhy O;ogkj gs fQ;kZnh o vkjksih ;kaP;krhy >kysys laiw.kZ O;ogkj vkgsr gs eh [kksVs lkaxr vkgs- gs Eg.k.ks [kjs vkgs dh] fu- 54 o 55 oj R;ke/khy O;ogkj gsp laiw.kZ O;ogkj vkgsr vlk dksBsgh mYys[k ukgh- gs Eg.k.ks [kjs vkgs dh] eyk dkxni=s vkf.k dksVkZe/;s tk.;kpk vuqHko vkgs- CkWadsps Lor%ps ysVj gsM vlrs ;kph eyk ekfgrh vkgs- gs Eg.k.ks [kjs ukgh dh] cWadsrQsZ U;k;ky;kr nk[ky dsysys fjiksVZ gs ysVj gsMoj nk[ky dsys tkrkr- gs Eg.k.ks [kjs ukgh dh] eyk U;k;ky;kekQZr vf/kd`r leUl feGkysys ukgh- gs Eg.k.ks [kjs ukgh dh] fQ;kZnhlkscr ek>s pkaxys laca/k vlY;kdkj.kkus fQ;kZnhP;k Qk;n;klkBh eh vktjksth [kksVh lk{k nsr vkgs- gs Eg.k.ks [kjs vkgs dh] ek>s vkf/kdkji= cWadsP;k ysVj gsMoj vkgs- gs Eg.k.ks [kjs vkgs dh] fu- 54 o 55 ojhy fjiksVZ gs cWadsyk ysVj gsMoj ns.;kl dks.krhgh vMp.k ukgh- gs Eg.k.ks [kjs vkgs dh] fu- 54 o 55 oj cWadsrQsZ dks.krkgh tkod Øekad ukgh- gs Eg.k.ks [kjs dh] fu- 54

¶35

5/7

¶36

APL-523-2021
& APL-514-2021

¶37

Rane

¶38

o 55 ojhy fjiksVZ dks.kR;k ’kk[ksr] dks.kR;k fno’kh o fdrh oktrk MkÅu yksM dsys ;kpk ri’khy ueqn ukgh- gs Eg.k.ks [kjs vkgs dh] fu- 54 o 55 ojhy fjiksVZ [kksVs vkgsr o R;krhy

¶39

laiw.kZ ekfgrh pwdhph vkgs- ‘’ (emphasis supplied)

¶40

3. According to the complainant, error crept in,

¶41

while concluding the evidence of P.W.4, particularly in the
last line of deposition, needed clarification and thus re-
examination of P.W.4 was essential. The trial Court
declined, to recall the witness, on the ground, that the
application moved was indefinite/vague and para-4 of the
application does not elaborate, in context of which facts, the

¶42

error crept in. Yet, another reason was, assuming it was an
error, applicant ought to have moved the Court and filed

¶43

the “correction slip” on the date on which evidence of
P.W.4 was recorded and read over to him in terms of

¶44

Section 278 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Notwithstanding the rejection of the application, the

¶45

Rane6/7 APL-523-2021
& APL-514-2021

¶46

Learned Judge has correctly observed that, powers under
Section 311 are to be exercised when the evidence appears
to be essential to just the decision of the case. In para-4 of
the impugned order, the Learned Judge has justified, the
rejection. That being the case, impugned order requires no
interference in the revisional jurisdiction.

¶47

5. Yet, vide application below Exhibit-64, applicant

¶48

was seeking to summon and examine the Bank Officials of
HDFC Bank who was not examined inadvertently. It may
be stated that, in HDFC Bank, the accused was having his
Account, where the complainant has transferred the funds
through NEFT-RTGS Mode. The documents evidencing
transfer of funds have been brought on record at Exhibits-
54 and 55 through P.W.4, Officer of the transferee Bank. In
view of this fact, the trial Court has correctly rejected this
application on the ground that in view of the evidence of
official of Federal Bank (of P.W.4), who has brought on

¶49

Rane7/7 APL-523-2021
& APL-514-2021

¶50

record, NEFT Inward Report, Exhibit-54 and RTGS

¶51

Outward Report, Exhibit-55 summoning the officials of the
HDFC Bank will result into repetition of evidence. The
trial Court’s reasoning is rational and therefore no
interference is called for. Both the Applications are rejected
and disposed of accordingly.

¶52

Digitally signed by NEETA NEETA SHAILESH SHAILESH SAWANT SAWANT Date: 2021.09.14 17:04:49 +0530

¶53

(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.)

Anuja Dharmesh Mehendale v. M/S. Chaitanya Kanifnath Steel Corporation Thr Sanjay Bajirao Markad and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anuja Dharmesh Mehendale v. M/S. Chaitanya Kanifnath Steel Corporation Thr Sanjay Bajirao Markad 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

Clayton Rudolf Fernandes Vs the State of Maharashtra

Iftekhar Rashid Kazi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vipul Ramkumar Panwar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shardul Jayesh Mody Vs Dhruvita Shardul Mody and Anr.

Vinod S/O. Ganeshbhai Kevadiya Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kunti Sanjay Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.