Ashish Sharadrao Dhande vs Manas Shalikram Chaudhary & Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 2816 Bom

Judgment

                                                                  apeal347.99 42

                                       1

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

               CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.347 OF 1999

Ashish s/o Sharadrao Dhande,
Aged 30 years, occupation-
business, resident of - 39,
Ramakrishna Society, Narendra
Nagar, Nagpur.                                            ..... Appellant.

                                ::   VERSUS   ::

1. Manas s/o Shalikram Chaudhary,
aged - 28 years, occupation -
business, r/o Ganguly Apartments,
Somalwada, Wardha Road, Nagpur.

2. State of Maharashtra.                        ..... Respondents.

==============================================================
          Shri Girish Kandhare, Adv. H/f Shri Dr. Anjan De, Counsel 
          for the Appellant.
==============================================================


                              CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE, J.

                              DATE     : JUNE 6, 2017.



ORAL JUDGMENT

1. By the present appeal, the appellant/original

.....2/-

Judgment

apeal347.99 42

complainant challenges judgment and order of acquittal

passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Nagpur in Summary Criminal Case No.87 of 1998 dated

28.9.1999, by which learned Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate acquitted respondent No.1 for the offence

punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881.

2. Heard Advocate Shri Girish Kandhare h/f

learned counsel Dr. Anjan De for the appellant at

length.

3. Submission on behalf learned counsel for the

appellant is, that Exhibit 37, which is xerox copy of

certificate of registration, is available on record.

Therefore, according to him, learned Magistrate has

committed a mistake in recording a finding that the

.....3/-

Judgment

apeal347.99 42

appellant has not proved his ownership over the

vehicle.

4. It is to be seen that in the complaint the

appellant nowhere mentioned that he is the owner of

Maruti Van bearing registration No.MH-31/G-8216.

Further, it is an admitted position that the sale

consideration of the said Van for transfer in favour of

respondent No.1 is also not pleaded in the complaint.

The same will be vital because according to the

complainant, he was the owner of the said vehicle and

he sold the said vehicle to respondent No.1 and in

respect of the said transaction, he received a disputed

cheque which was not honoured by the banker of

respondent No.1.

5. In so far as submission, in respect of Exhibit

.....4/-

Judgment

apeal347.99 42

37, learned Trial Judge has rightly observed that the

original of the said document is not placed on record,

what is filed on record is xerox copy. Further, the said

document is exhibited only to the extent of genuineness

but it was never admitted by respondent No.1. In that

view of the matter, I see no reason to overturn the

reasonings given by learned Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate that in absence of any explanation, as to why

the complainant has not filed the original document on

record, requires to draw adverse inference especially

when it is an admitted position, as can be seen by the

observation made in the impugned judgment, that the

complainant has admitted in his verification statement

that he is broker of the vehicles.

6. The appellant has miserably failed to prove

.....5/-

Judgment

apeal347.99 42

that the disputed cheque was issued by respondent No.1

in discharge of his legal liability. No perversity is

noticed in the impugned judgment. Hence, the criminal

appeal is dismissed.

JUDGE

!! BRW !!

...../-