Allowed

Harappa Ventures through Its Partner Ravikant Ambadas Rathod v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC6 Sept 2021WP/1836/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal writ petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner's evidence in a cheque dishonour case, directing the cashier to lead evidence within three weeks while imposing a cost penalty.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; impugned order set aside; petitioner directed to lead evidence within three weeks; Rs. 10,000 costs imposed.

Harappa Ventures through Its Partner Ravikant Ambadas Rathod… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

( 1 ) crwp1836.19

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1836 OF 2019

¶4

Harappa Ventures..Petitioner
Through its Partner,
Shri Ravikant Ambadas Rathod,
Age. 33 years, Occ. Business,
R/o. Appt. Apratim Pushp Apartment,
Beed Byepass, Satara Parisar,
Aurangabad.

¶5

Versus

¶6

1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Through its Secretary, Law and Judiciary Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32.

¶7

2. Gajanan Chaganrao Pakhare, Age. 42 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Sanjay Nagar, Baijipura, Smashan Maroti Road, Aurangabad.

¶8

Mr.Sandip P. Rathod, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.N. Morampalle, APP for respondent/State.
Mr.S.A. Ambad, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶9

CORAM : SURENDRA P. TAVADE, J.
DATED :06.09.2021

¶10

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

¶11

01.Rule. Rule taken for hearing forthwith, with

¶12

the consent of the parties.

¶13

02.The petitioner is challenging the order dated
31.08.2019 passed by the 3rd Judicial Magistrate, First
Class, Aurangabad on Exh.45 in SCC No.9907 of 2017,
whereby the request of the petitioner to lead evidence
was rejected.

¶14

03.The facts giving rise to the present petition
can be summarized as under :-

¶15

04.The petitioner is facing Criminal Case bearing
SCC No.9907 of 2017 before the JMFC, Aurangabad. One
Gajanan Pakhare has filed complaint against the
petitioner for the offence punishable under section 138
of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the said case the
respondent led his evidence and also closed evidence on
his behalf. Thereafter, the Trial Court granted time to
the petitioner to lead evidence, but inspite of
sufficient opportunity the petitioner did not lead
evidence. Hence, the Trial Court passed the impugned

¶16

order of closing of evidence of the petitioner, which is
challenged in this petition.

¶17

05.It it contended on behalf of the petitioner that

¶18

the valuable right of the petitioner to lead evidence was
rejected by the Trial Court. It is contended that as per
the provisions of Sections 118, 119 and 139 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, the petitioner has right to
lead rebuttal evidence. If said right is refused,
irreparable loss would be caused to the petitioner.
Hence, it is prayed that the order of the Trial Court be
set aside and the petitioner be allowed to lead evidence.

¶19

06.On the other hand, learned Counsel for
respondent No.2 submits that the statement of the
petitioner was recorded on 02.11.2018. Thereafter, the
petitioner was allowed to lead his evidence. Since,
23.11.2018 the petitioner sought time to lead evidence
till 19.06.2019. Ultimately, the Trial Court closed
evidence of the petitioner and the matter was listed for

¶20

arguments. He submits that for more than one and half
years, the petitioner was given opportunity to lead his
evidence, but he simply took adjournments and ultimately
did not lead evidence. It is contended that the Trial
Court has given sufficient opportunity to the petitioner

¶21

to lead evidence, but it was not availed by the
petitioner. Therefore, order of the Trial Court is just
and proper. There is no need to interfere in the said
order.

¶22

07. Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the

¶23

respondent. Perused the impugned order. It appears that
on 02.11.2018 the statement of the petitioner was
recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the
matter was adjourned from time to time for evidence of
the petitioner on 23.11.2018. Ultimately, on 19.06.2019,
the petitioner was present in the Court along with his

¶24

advocate, but he neither made any application for
adjournment nor he adduced any evidence, therefore, the
Trial Court suo-moto passed the impugned order and closed

¶25

evidence of the petitioner.

¶26

08.The petitioner is facing charge under section

¶27

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Negotiable
Instruments Act mandates that the proceedings under
section 138 are required to be decided within six months
from date of filing of the complaint. In the present
case, the complaint was filed in the year 2017.
Respondent No.2 led his evidence. So it was expected
from the petitioner to lead evidence but it appears that
for more than one and half years, the petitioner has
simply sought adjournment and did not try to lead
evidence. Even in this petition also no cause is shown
by the petitioner as to why he did not lead evidence,
though he was asked to lead the same. Counsel for the
petitioner simply made grievance that his valuable right
of leading evidence was infringed by the impugned order.
Therefore, he prayed for setting aside the impugned
order. It is true that the petitioner has right to rebut
the presumption enumerated in the Negotiable Instruments

¶28

Act, but at the same time it was expected from the
petitioner to exercise the same within reasonable time.
Inspite of giving opportunity to him, he did not lead
evidence. In order to decide the case, evidence of the
petitioner is just required or petitioner must be given
opportunity to lead evidence. The matter is already
dragged by the petitioner. Therefore, to meet the ends
of justice, the petitioner can be given chance to lead
evidence by imposing heavy costs and with certain
directions to conclude his evidence in time bound manner.
Therefore, in my opinion, the petition is required to be
allowed. Hence, I pass the following order :-

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

i)The petition is allowed.

¶31

ii)The impugned order passed by the Trial
Court is hereby set aside with directions to the
petitioner to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees
Ten Thousand) to respondent No.2. In default of
payment of costs, the Trial Court shall proceed
further without considering evidence of the
petitioner.

¶32

( 7 ) crwp1836.19

¶33

iii)The petitioner is directed to lead his
evidence within three weeks from 09.09.2021.

¶34

iv)Rule made absolute accordingly.

¶35

[SURENDRA P. TAVADE,J.]

¶36

snk/2021/SEP21/crwp1836.19

Harappa Ventures through Its Partner Ravikant Ambadas Rathod v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harappa Ventures through Its Partner Ravikant Ambadas Rathod 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anita W/O. Gorakh Mindhe and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Balasaheb Baburao Shep Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Balasaheb Somnath Latke and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Tryambak Sakharam Sonar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Chandanlal S/O. Surajlal Jaiswal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Popat Maruti Kutal Vs Shakuntala W/O. Kaushik More and Others