Arun Janrao Bhure vs Manoj Rameshlal Bajaj & Another
2017 Latest Caselaw 2821 Bom

 apeal.238.2001                                  1        

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

                    CRIMINAL   APPEAL NO. 238 OF 2001


 Arun S/o Janrao Bhure,
 Aged about 32 years,Occ-Business,
 R/o Raut Wadi,Akola,
 Police Station and Tq.Akola,
 District-Akola.                                              ..... APPELLANT

       ...V E R S U S...

  
 1. Manoj S/o Rameshlal Bajaj,
    Aged about 39 years,Occ-Business,
    C/o R.S.Garments, Pakki Kholi,
    Sindhi Camp,Akola,
    P.S. and Tq.Akola,District-Akola.


 2. State of Maharashtra,
      Through Police Station Officer,
      Police Station Civil Lines,Akola,
      Tq. And District-Akola.                                 ...RESPONDENTS
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri C.A.Joshi, Advocate for appellant.
 Shri N.B.Jawade for respondent no.2.
 None for respondent no.1. 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               CORAM:- V. M. DESHPANDE, J.

DATED :- JUNE 6,2017

ORAL JUDGMENT

The present appeal is directed against the judgment

and order of acquittal passed by learned 8 th Joint Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Akola dated 07/03/2001 in Summary

Criminal Case No.23850/1998 by which the Court below acquitted

respondent no.1 from the offence punishable under Section 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act.

Heard Shri C.A.Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant

and Shri N.B.Jawade,learned A.P.P. for respondent no.2. None

appeared for respondent no.1.

2. A complaint was filed against respondent no.1 that

cheque (Exh.29) for Rs. 10,000/- was issued by respondent no.1

to the appellant dated 27/3/1998 of Akola Urban Co-operative

Bank Limited,Akola bearing cheque no.019576 in discharge of his

legal liability which was dishonoured by his bank for the reason "

funds insufficient". After the issuance of statutory notice the

amount was not paid and therefore the complaint was lodged.

3. Complainant entered into witness box. He examined his

one witness Ravindra S/o Kisanrao Gotmare

4. From the evidence, as it is brought on record that on

16/5/1997 the respondent no.1 executed an agreement (Exh.30)

in presence of Ravindra(PW2). The said agreement was according

to the complainant was scribed by Shri M.L.Shah,Advocate.

According to said agreement Rs. 80,000/- were given to the

accused and the said amount was given in the house of accused.

5. Except agreement (Exh.30) there is no other document

on record to show that amount was paid by the complainant to

accused. What is important to note that there is no mention of this

agreement(Exh.30) in the statutory notice (Exh.31) or in the

complaint itself. For the first time, during the course of evidence

the said fact was brought on record. Further Shri M.L.Shah,

Advocate is also not examined. The evidence of Ravindra(PW2)

shows that amount was not paid in his presence. In the cross-

examination, the complainant has accepted that when accused

Manoj used to go outside he used to look after the transaction of

the R.S.Garments,a proprietory concern of the accused. He has

also admitted that he used to look after his bank transaction.

6. The learned Court below on appreciation of the

evidence found that agreement(Exh.30) is not a trustworthy and

reliable document. According to complainant, the cheque in

dispute was issued towards the part payment of the amount shown

in the agreement,but the Court found that the complainant has

failed to discharge the burden that the cheque in question was

issued by accused in discharge of the legal liability. No case is

made out for interference. Hence, appeal is dismissed.

JUDGE

Kitey