Santosh S/O Sukhraj Pataliya vs M/S Shriram City Union Fin. Ltd. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1098 Bom

                                                                                                                                                       31crrevn18.21.odt
                                                                                           1


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

                CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 18/2022
    Sanotsh Sukhraj Pataliya...Versus...M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd and
                                         anr
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- -
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,                                                                             Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders or directions
and Registrar's orders
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- ------------ -
                                                           Mrs. R.G.Nitnaware, Advocate for the applicant


                                                                                        CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATE : 31/01/2022

1] Hearing was conducted through Video Conferencing and the learned counsel agreed that the audio and visual quality was proper.

[

2] Heard Mrs. Nitnaware, learned counsel for the applicant, who contends that the conviction of the applicant is based upon an incorrect appreciation of the proposition of law that a power of attorney who does not have personal knowledge of the transaction cannot depose in that aspect and therefore, the conviction based upon such deposition was not justified. She submits that the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed by one Yogendra Prakashrao Gawaner, who was not examined at all and it is one Mrs. Namita Yogesh Shinde PW-1 who has entered into the witness-box as the power of attorney who was not having any knowledge in respect of the transaction in 31crrevn18.21.odt

question and relying upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Janki Washdeo Bhojwani and another vrs. Indusind Bank Ltd., and others, (2005) 2 SCC 217 and Man Kaur thr L.Rs vrs. Hartar Singh Sangha, (2010) 10 SCC 512, she submits that the conviction is not justified. She further submits that Rs.10,000/- out of the fine amount has already been paid to the Non-Applicant/Complainant as directed by the judgment of learned JMFC and Rs. 2,000/- has been deposited in the Court of the JMFC, out of the total compensation of Rs. 12,000/- awarded by the learned JMFC. [

3] She further submits that accused/applicant is ready to deposit the cheque amount of Rs. 8,190/- in this Court by 4.2.2022, considering which issue notice to the respondents, returnable in two weeks.

Criminal Application (APPR) No. 13/2022

4] The sentence imposed upon the applicant in Summary Criminal Case No. 1880/2010 by the learned JMFC shall stand suspended during the pendency of the revision and the applicant shall stand released on bail on executing a PR bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/-. The Application stands disposed of.

                                                  Digitally sign byRAJESH
                                        JUDGE     VASANTRAO JALIT
                                                  Location:
Rvjalit                                           Signing Date:31.01.2022 16:32