Appeal against acquittal in a Section 138 cheque dishonour case arising from a tempo sale. The High Court held the complainant's cross-examination admissions showed the cheques were issued by way of security, rebutting statutory presumptions, and dismissed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
26 APEAL 397-25-CR.DOC
Priya Soparkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.397 OF 2025 Sunil Suryakant Zodge …Appellant Versus The State of Maharashtra and anr. …Respondents
Mr. Vaibhav V. Ugle , for the Appellant.
Ms. Hasnain Kazi with Ms. Shraddha Wavhul and Ms. Simran Shaikh, for the Respondent No.2.
Ms. Shilpa K. Gajare, APP , for the State.
CORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J. DATED: 16th JANUARY, 2026.
PC:-
Digitally signed byPRIYA PRIYARAJESHSOPARKAR RAJESHSOPARKARDate: 2026.01.17 17:56:38 +0530
Page 1 of 5 16th January, 2026.
26 APEAL 397-25-CR.DOC
to the Complainant’s bank directly and to pay Rs.7,80,000/- within a period of three months. An agreement came to be executed between the parties on 20th September, 2013 before Notary. Complainant claims that against the purchase price of the tempo, accused issued cheques which came to be dishonored. The Complainant, therefore, issued statutory notice to the accused. Since the notice was not complied, complaint came to be filed before the Trial Court. Complainant led evidence and relied upon the Agreement-Exhibit 25. Dishonoured cheques-Exhibits 27 and 28 memos issued by the bank Exhibits 30 and 31 for the dishonoured of the cheques with the remark “funds insufficient”. The accused did not lead any evidence. The Trial Court acquitted the accused by passing impugned judgment and order. Hence, this Appeal.
Page 2 of 5
16th January, 2026.
26 APEAL 397-25-CR.DOC
record, so also the presumption under Section 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Page 3 of 5 16th January, 2026.
26 APEAL 397-25-CR.DOC
of Complainant. At the same time, said presumption can be rebutted by the accused, not only by entering into the witness box, but even by way of cross examination of Complainant or his witnesses. Here, in this case, the accused has not disputed the signature on the cheques in question. However, by way of crossexamination of the Complainant, it is suggested that the cheques were issued by way of security. No doubt, the accused has not responded to the statutory notice issued by the Complainant to him. However, in the cross-examination, the Complainant candidly admits that the accused was working as a driver of the tanker, which was attached to Goverdhan Dairy. He further accepted that the bill of the said tanker used to be drawn in the name of accused, and that accused was making payment to the Complainant by cash or cheque. In this backdrop, the denial of the Complainant that the cheques were issued by the accused towards security is not sufficient.
Page 4 of 5
16th January, 2026.
26 APEAL 397-25-CR.DOC
contemplated by the appropriate provision, and merely because pursis was filed, the cross-examination and admissions in the crossexamination given by the Complainant cannot be discarded.
Page 5 of 5
16th January, 2026.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the accused rebutted the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 NI Act through cross-examination admissions despite a pursis admitting liability
Whether the trial court's acquittal under Section 138 NI Act was perverse and warranted interference
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Sunil Suryakant Zodge
The State of Maharashtra
Respondent No.2 (complainant)
R. M. Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
