Bombay High Court
M/S Videocon Narmada Electronics ... vs M/S Top Line Shoes Limited & Ors on 30 November, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
(1) Cri. Appln. No. 52 of 2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.
Criminal Application No. 52 of 2004
(In Criminal Writ Petition No. 522 of 1998)
District : Ahmednagar
M/s. Videocon International Limited,
a Company having its Branch office at
Gangapur Gin Compound, Station Road,
Ahmednagar, through its
power of attorney holder
Mr. Balasaheb Trimbak Patil,
Residing at Pipe Line Road,
Ahmednagar. .. Applicant.
versus
1. M/s. Top Line Shoes Limited,
a Company having its registered
office at 229, Jambusar Road,
Village Dabhasa, Taluka Parde,
Dist. Vadodara (Gujarat), and
Also at : 66, Kakad Industrial
Estate, L.T. Road, Mahim,
Mumbai - 16.
2. Mr. Hosad Manjappaiah Guru
Murthy s/o. Hosad Manjappaiah,
Age : Major,
Occupation : Business Executive,
Residing at 66,
Kakad Industrial Estate,
L.T. Road, Mahim, Mumbai - 16.
3. The State of Maharashtra. .. Respondents.
............
::: Uploaded on - 07/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2016 00:08:17 :::
(2) Cri. Appln. No. 52 of 2004
Mr. A.S. Bajaj, Advocate, for the applicant.
Mr. Sunil V. Warad, Advocate, for respondent
nos.1 and 2.
Mr. P.N. Kutti, Addl. Public Prosecutor, for
respondent no.3.
............
CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.
DATE : 30TH NOVEMBER 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard learned Advocates for the respective
parties.
02. The applicant had filed a complaint under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
against the non-applicant nos. 01 and 02. The
learned Magistrate directed issuance of process which
order was challenged by the non-applicant nos.01 and
02 before this court in Criminal Writ Petition No.
522 of 1998. In the Writ Petition, the non-
applicants stated that the cheque, on the basis of
which complaint was filed by the applicant, was blank
when it was given to the applicant and except
signature nothing was written on it. This averment
was made on solemn affirmation. The Writ Petition
was disposed as withdrawn.
The trial proceeded and in the evidence of non-
(3) Cri. Appln. No. 52 of 2004
applicant no.02, he admitted that the cheque which
was given to the applicant was not blank.
In these facts, the applicant has filed this
application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 contending that the non-applicant
nos.01 and 02 are liable for prosecution and
conviction for offence punishable under Section 191
of Indian Penal Code.
03. The emphasis of learned Advocate for the
applicant is on the pleadings / averments in the
petition and the admission given by the non-applicant
no.02 in evidence. However, the learned Advocate for
the applicant has not been able to point out that
this Court relied on the alleged false statement made
in the petition and passed any orders which affected
the course of justice.
04. The learned Advocate for the non-applicant
nos.01 and 02 has submitted that the non-applicant
nos.01 and 02 are acquitted of the offence punishable
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 by the Sessions Court in Criminal Appeal No.
50/2003. It is further submitted by the learned
Advocate for the non-applicant nos.01 and 02 that
Special Civil Suit No. 84/1998 which was filed by the
applicant praying for decree for recovery of the
amount as reflected in the cheque in question, is
(4) Cri. Appln. No. 52 of 2004
dismissed by the judgment given on 11th June, 2009 by
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ahmednagar.
05. In the above facts, I am not inclined to
show any indulgence in the matter. The Criminal
Application is dismissed. In the circumstances, the
parties to bear their own costs.
( Z.A. HAQ )
JUDGE
ig ..........
puranik / CRIAPPLN52.04
