Shri. Shamrao Agnu Kargane vs 1. Shri. Guruling Kailas Samangade

¶1

{1}

¶2

84- ALP- 167-2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

APPLN FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL(PVT.) NO. 167 OF 2024

¶5

Shri. Shamrao Agnu Kargane

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Shri. Guruling Kailas Samangade & Another

¶8

Mr. Om. U. Mangave a/w Mr. Parth Pitambare and Siyal Magdum i/b Umesh Mankapure, Advocate for applicant Mr. Padmanabh Pise a/w Mr. Prathamesh and Suavarnabhadra Patil, Advocate for Respondent No. 1 Dr. A.A. Takalkar, APP for State

¶9

CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.

¶10

DATE : 16^th FEBRUARY, 2026

¶11

ORDER :

¶12

By this application for leave to file appeal under Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, applicant/original complainant challenges judgment and order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2018 thereby setting aside the judgment of Trial Court in Summary Criminal Case No. 342 of 2015 and acquitting the accused.

¶13

Applicant filed summary criminal case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act contending that accused approached him

¶14

Bhagyawant Punde

¶15

{2} 84- ALP- 167-2024

¶16

in the month of January-2014 and showed willingness to purchase the grapes grown by him in the field. The price of grapes was fixed at Rs. 205/- per box for “Sonakka” and Rs. 140/- per box for “Tash Ganesh” grapes. Accused purchased 2098 boxes of “Sonakka” grapes and 725 boxes of “Tash Ganesh” grapes on credit, total worth Rs. 5,31,590/from the field of complainant on 28.03.2014 and 29.03.2014 with an assurance to pay amount by the end of June-2014. Since the accused did not pay the amount, complainant started demanding the amount, but accused avoided to pay the same. Lastly, in the month of December-2014, accused issued post dated cheque bearing No. 076162 dated 05.05.2015 drawn on the ICIC Bank, branch at KavatheMahankal for Rs. 3,50,000/- towards part payment of price of grapes stating that he will make payment through said cheque in the month of May-2015, after receiving the amount from the third party Mr. Asif Bagwan, a trader at Kolkata. On deposit of said cheque, the cheque was returned as the funds were insufficient on 06.05.2015. The complainant issued legal notice on 01.06.2015. Accused, however, sent false reply to the said notice. Hence, the complaint was filed.

¶17

After recording of evidence, Trial Court convicted the respondent

¶18

No.1 for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for

¶19

Bhagyawant Punde

¶20

{3} 84- ALP- 167-2024

¶21

a term of six months and to pay fine of Rs. 3,60,000/-. Out of the fine amount, Rs. 3,50,00/- was directed to be paid to the complainant. Being aggrieved, Respondent No. 1 preferred Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2018, which is allowed. Hence, the present application.

¶22

Heard learned advocate for the applicant, learned advocate for Respondent No. 1 and learned APP for State. Perused the documents placed on record and the impugned order.

¶23

Learned advocate for the applicant assailed the Appellate Court’s judgment contending that the Appellate Court has erroneously appreciated the evidence and has erred in setting aside the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court. The reasons assigned by the Appellate Court are not acceptable and the impugned judgment is therefore liable to be quashed and set aside by upholding the Trial Court’s judgment.

¶24

Record indicates that the complainant’s son Dilip was looking after the agricultural land of the complainant. He sold grapes to Asif Bagwan and accused has no concern with the said transaction. When Asif Bagwan failed to pay the amount, complainant started demanding amount from Dilip. Dilip happens to be the friend of accused, to pacify complainant, Dilip took three blank cheques from the accused and

Bhagyawant Punde

{4}

84- ALP- 167-2024

handed over those cheques to the complainant. Accused never purchased grapes from the complainant and has never issued any cheque to the complainant.

¶29

Both the parties have filed documents in the Appellate Court, by way of additional evidence. A certified copy of Special Civil Suit No. 19 of 2017 filed by complainant in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangli for recovery of price of grapes of Rs. 5,31,590/-, so also police statement of Dilip, son of the applicant (Exhibit-41) are filed on record. In the statement (Exhibit-41) Dilip has stated that because of the accused he sold grapes to Asif Bagwan in 2014 and accused had accepted the responsibility of payment of grapes. This statement runs counter to the allegations of the complainant that he sold grapes to the accused.

¶30

It is the case of the complainant that accused handed over cheque on 05.05.2015, in April-2015. It was presented and returned upaid on 06.05.2015. Notice was issued by complainant on 01.06.2015. It is pertinent to note that police statement of Dilip (Exhibit-41) is recorded on 30.05.2015 and on the same day police statement of accused (Exhibit-42) was recorded. Accused has taken same defence in his police statement. Accused has also taken same defence in his notice reply dated 18.06.2015. Same defence was taken

Bhagyawant Punde

{5}

84- ALP- 167-2024

in the cross examination of complainant and his witness. Thus, there is independent material in the form of police statement of Dilip (Exhibit41) supporting the defence of the accused and his defence appears to be probable. Complainant has failed to examine his son in support of his case.

¶35

The material on record is sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt about legal liability of the accused. Since, the complainant has failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt, the Appellate Court has rightly acquitted the accused.

¶36

The view taken by the Appellate Court while acquitting the accused is possible view. It is settled legal position that even if different view is possible, this Court would not exercise jurisdiction under Section 378 Cr.P.C. The Appellate Court has given proper reasons while acquitting the accused.

¶37

For the aforestated reasons, no case is made out by the applicant to interfere in the judgment of Appellate Court. Application being devoid of merit is dismissed.

¶38

(NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)

¶39

Bhagyawant Punde

Shri. Shamrao Agnu Kargane v. 1. Shri. Guruling Kailas Samangade

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Shamrao Agnu Kargane v. 1. Shri. Guruling Kailas Samangade

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ankush Anandrao Keripale vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sambhaji Achyutrao Patil vs Amol Shridhar Tambe and Ors.

Sanjaykumar Ramkesh Patel vs the State of Maharashtra

Sanket Ravindra Suryawanshi vs the State of Maharashtra

Vinayak Haribhau Pawar vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rupa @ Sapna Abdulkashim Shaikh vs the State of Maharashtra