Kolhapur District Nagari Bank vs Vijay Shankar Chavan And Anr.
2006 Latest Caselaw 1228 Bom

Citation : 2006 Latest Caselaw 1228 Bom
Judgement Date : 19 December, 2006

Bombay High Court

Kolhapur District Nagari Bank vs Vijay Shankar Chavan And Anr. on 19 December, 2006

Equivalent citations: IV (2007) BC 173

Author: A S Oka

Bench: A S Oka

JUDGMENT

Abhay S. Oka, J.

1. Heard Mr. Borkar appearing in support of the application. The applicant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the 1st respondent. The order of acquittal is passed on the ground that though the applicant received the intimation of dishonour of the cheque on 6th November, 2002, the notice under Section 138(b) of the said Act of 1881 was issued on 22nd November, 2002.

2. Mr. Borkar submitted that the register maintained by the applicant shows that in fact the intimation of dishonour was received on 11th November, 2002. He submitted that the intimation is issued on 6th November, 2002 and therefore, it is impossible that the intimation could have been received by the applicant on the same day. He submitted that what is mentioned in the deposition of the Manager of the applicant is the date mentioned on the memorandum of dishonour and not the date of the receipt thereof by the applicant. He submitted that the date on-which intimation of dishonour was received can be proved only on the basis of the register maintained by the applicant and the said Register shows that the intimation was received on 11th November, 2002.

3. I have considered the submissions. The complaint does not disclose that the intimation of dishonour was received on 11th November, 2002. Even in the affidavit of examination-in-chief of the representative of the applicant, he did not state that the intimation was received on 11th November, 2002. A perusal of the notice under Section 138(b) of the said Act of 1881 shows that the intimation was received on 6th November, 2002.

4. It is thus obvious that the view taken by the learned Trial Judge is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the material on record. Even assuming that another view is possible to be taken, it is not a ground to interfere in an appeal against acquittal. No case is made out for grant of leave. The application is rejected.