Dismissed¶33

Bhupendra S/O Pralhad Chavan v. Crc Jeweller Thr Its Proprietor Gokul Rameshchandra Chavan

Criminal Application (APL) dismissed – S.138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Secondary evidence

Bombay HC22 Jan 2026APL/1688/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench; Criminal Application (APL) No.1688/2024; S.138 NI Act summary case; application under S.65 r/w S.63 Evidence Act for secondary evidence of partnership deed dated 28.03.2018 and notice dated 05.08.2019; JMFC Amravati allowed; Sessions revision dismissed; High Court declined interference and dismissed application; relied on Anil Bilasaheb Murde v. Adinath Trimbak Bodkhe 2007(1) Mh.L.J.(Cri.) 271; Coram Pravin S. Patil, J.; decided 02.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

None; the criminal application was dismissed with no order as to costs. ¶33

Bhupendra S/O Pralhad Chavan vs Crc Jeweller Thr Its… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the criminal application was dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the concurrent orders of the trial court and the Sessions Court permitting the accused/non-applicants to lead secondary evidence of the partnership deed dated 28.03.2018 and notice dated 05.08.2019, challenged by the applicant-complainant, warranted interference by this Court.

¶11

Court's answer

Since the complainant refused the original partnership deed, the non-applicant followed due procedure in moving for permission to lead secondary evidence, and the learned Magistrate therefore rightly allowed the application.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

The Sessions Court, while deciding the revision, considered all the grounds raised by the applicant and dismissed the revision by recording cogent reasons.

¶32

Key takeaways

This was not a fit case for any interference by this Court; the criminal application had no merit and stood dismissed.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Application (APL) dismissed — S.138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Secondary evidence — Ss.63 & 65, Indian Evidence Act, 1872: The applicant, original complainant in Summary Criminal Case No.4336/2019, challenged the order dated 13.08.2024 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati dismissing his revision against the JMFC's order dated 07.11.2022 permitting the accused to lead secondary evidence of a partnership deed dated 28.03.2018 and notice dated 05.08.2019 under S.65 r/w S.63 of the Evidence Act, the original deed being with the complainant who denied executing it. Held: the original partnership deed having been refused by the complainant, the non-applicant had followed due procedure and the Magistrate rightly allowed the application; the Sessions Court had considered all grounds raised and dismissed the revision with cogent reasons; no interference was warranted. Reliance placed on Anil Bilasaheb Murde v. Adinath Trimbak Bodkhe, 2007 (1) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 271. Application dismissed, no order as to costs. (Paras 6-9)

¶1

5 apl 1688-2024.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.1688/2024 Bhupendra s/o Pralhad Chavan Vs.

¶5

GRC Jewellers, Through its Proprietor, Mr. Gokul Rameshchandra Chavan

¶6

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders

¶8

¶9

Shri P.R. Agrawal, Advocate for applicant Shri Y.P. Kaslikar, Advocate for non-applicant

¶10

CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J. DATE : 02.02.2026

¶11

By this application, the applicant is challenging the order dated 13.08.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati, in Criminal Revision Application No.136/2023, arising out of order dated 07.11.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amravati, in Summary Criminal Case No. 4336/2019.

¶12

The brief facts of the case are that the applicant is the original complainant in Summary Criminal Case No.4336/2019 filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. On 13.09.2022, after recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the proprietor namely Gokul Chavan entered into the witness box on 14.10.2022 and thereafter, the matter was posted for cross-examination on 07.11.2022.

¶13

5 apl 1688-2024.odt

¶14

¶15

On 07.11.2022, the accused/non-applicant filed an application under Section 65 read with Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for grant of permission to lead secondary evidence relating to the partnership deed dated 28.03.2018 and notice dated 05.08.2019, on the ground that there is a partnership deed executed by complainant, accused and brother of accused. Original copy of said deed is with complainant. In the evidence, complainant denied the said deed. As such, he being in possession and produced the xerox copy on record, the same needs to be proved by way of secondary evidence.

¶16

The learned Trial Court by order dated 07.11.2022, allowed the application by holding that whether the complainant executed a partnership deed and received a notice sent by the accused, will be ascertained during the trial. The accused/non-applicant No.1 complied all the requirements for seeking permission for leading secondary evidence, the permission was granted and non-applicant No.2 was permitted to lead secondary evidence in respect of the partnership deed dated 28.03.2018 and notice dated 05.08.2019.

¶17

The said order was the subject matter of Revision No.136/2023, before the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge by impugned judgment and order specifically recorded the finding that learned Trial Court has only granted permission to lead secondary evidence in

¶18

5 apl 1688-2024.odt

¶19

¶20

respect of the partnership deed and notice. Therefore, there is every opportunity to the applicant/complainant to crossexamine the witness, who being examined for the purpose of leading secondary evidence. So also, there would not be any prejudice to the complainant. The complainant while cross-examined the accused will be at liberty to verify the authenticity of the documents, which he is supposed to place on record by way of secondary evidence.

¶21

The non-applicant No.2 has relied upon the judgment of this Court in case of Anil Bilasaheb Murde vs. Adinath Trimbak Bodkhe reported in 2007 (1) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 271 , wherein this Court has recorded its finding in para 10 as under:

¶22

“10. In the present case, the application has been thrown out of the court, at the threshold. Whether the secondary evidence which the applicant seeks to lead is to be accepted or not, is a stage yet to arrive. The limited question before the trial court was whether to permit the applicant to lead the secondary evidence or not.

¶23

In the unreported judgment of this Court delivered in Civil Revision Application No. 500 of 1991 (supra), in almost similar facts, this Court has observed thus:

¶24

"There is no dispute that the necessary notice under the provisions of Order 12 Rule 8 of Civil Procedure Code is already given to the defendants and in pursuance of the said notice, the original kararnama is not produced. Prior proceedings

¶25

5 apl 1688-2024.odt

¶26

¶27

between the parties definitely makes out a reference to the transaction which is either named as Isar Pavti or a kararnama and the contention of the petitioners that it was in the nature of a security for loan also finds reference in the earlier proceedings. On the facts and material on record, there is satisfaction of the provisions of section 65(a) of the Evidence Act and in the context, it will have to be stated that the learned Judge was in error in rejecting the application for permission to lead secondary evidence."

¶28

In my view, the observations of this Court in the aforesaid case would support the case of the applicant. The applicant has led the foundation in his Police complaint, so also, complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, that the cheque is stolen by the present respondent/accused. Whether that is a matter of fact or not, would be decided only after the applicant is permitted to lead secondary evidence. In that view of the matter, I find that the impugned order is unsustainable in law and is liable to be quashed and set aside.”

¶29

In light of judgment of this Court and perusal of record, it is clear that due to refusal of original partnership deed, the present non-applicant by following due procedure, moved the application for grant of permission to lead secondary evidence. Hence, learned Magistrate rightly allowed the application. So also, the Sessions Court, while

¶30

5 apl 1688-2024.odt

¶31

¶32

deciding the revision, has considered all the grounds raised by applicant and by recording cogent reasons, dismissed the revision.

¶33

Therefore, in my opinion, it is not a fit case of any interference by this Court. Accordingly, in my considered opinion, there are no merit in the present application, hence same stands dismissed.

¶34

No order as to the costs.

¶35

R.S. Sahare

¶36

Signed by: Mrs. Ranjana Sahare Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 04/02/2026 19:44:57

Bhupendra S/O Pralhad Chavan v. Crc Jeweller Thr Its Proprietor Gokul Rameshchandra Chavan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhupendra S/O Pralhad Chavan v. Crc Jeweller Thr Its Proprietor Gokul Rameshchandra Chavan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Harshmeetsingh S/O Manjeetsingh Bhatia and 3 Other vs the State of Maharashtra through Pso Ballarsha Ps Chandrapur and Another

Subhasm S/O Late Shrei Tarun Solanki and Another vs the State of Maharashtra Thru Mankapur Ps Nagpur and Another

Rehana W/O Mamun Rashid Patel and 3 Others vs the State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer Ps Ramnagar Chandrapur and Another

Anmol S/O Prabhakar Palkar vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso, Ps, Bibi, Tah. Lonar, Dist. Buldhana and 1

Ronit R/O Dilip Vyas and Another vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso, Chandrapur (City), Chandrapur, Tah and Dist Chandrapur and 1

Vinodkumar Ramvilas Ladda and 4 Others vs the State of Mah. Thr. the Pso Ps Mangrulpir, Tah. Mangrulpir and Dist. Washim and Another