M/S Alpine Distributors Pvt. ... vs Premchand Resorts And Apartments ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4843 Bom

                       rpa                          1/2                     9 alp 534 2018.doc


                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                                CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ALP) NO.534 OF 2018


                       M/s.Alpine Distributors Pvt. Ltd. @
                       M/s.Saffron Developers Pvt. Ltd.                   .. Applicant
                             Versus
                       Premchand Resorts and Apartments
                       Pvt.Ltd. and Ors.                                  .. Respondents

                                                         ......

                       Mr.Vnay J. Bhanushali, Advocate for the Applicant.

                       Mr.Ashutosh Misra i/b. Mr.G.S. Vaidya, Advocate for Respondent
                       Nos.1 to 3.

                       Mrs.Veera Shinde, APP for the Respondent - State.
                                                     ......

                                                    CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

DATED : MARCH 17, 2021.

P.C. :

The applicant is seeking leave to fle Appeal against

judgment of acquittal passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate

48th Court, Andheri, Mumbai, vide judgment and order dated 17 th

September, 2018. Applicant is the original complainant. Digitally signed by RajeP. RajeP. Aher Respondent nos.1 to 3 were prosecuted as accused for offence Date:

Aher     2021.03.20
         12:50:48
         +0530

punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The

complaint relates to three cheques issued by accused no.1

company for total amount of Rs.13 crores. The cheques were rpa 2/2 9 alp 534 2018.doc

dishonourned and the complaint was fled. Evidence was

recorded.

2 Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that

the judgment of the trial Court is contrary to evidence on record.

The presumption under Section 139 was not rebutted. Accused

had produced some documents indicating that the account was

freezed by Income Tax authorities, however, no evidence was led.

The cheques were not dishonourned on account of attachment of

the account by the Income Tax authority. It is submitted that

there are several other infrmities in the judgment. In view of the

submissions and on perusal of the judgment, case is made out for

granting leave to fle Appeal. Hence, leave is granted. Appeal is

admitted. Hearing is expedited.

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)