Rakesh S/O Kasturilal Arora vs Pramod Vankatrao Tikte
2022 Latest Caselaw 5922 Bom

                                                         1                                 11.APPA.211-2022.odt




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

                CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO. 211 OF 2022
          ( Rakesh s/o Kasturilal Arora Vs. Pramod Vankatrao Tikte )

Office Notes, Office Memoranda                          Court's or Judge's orders
of Coram, Appearances, Court's
orders     or    directions and
Registrar's orders

                                  Mr. H.M. Bobade, Advocate for the Applicant/Appellant.
                                  Mr. I.J. Damle, Advocate for the Non-applicant/Respondent.

                                  CORAM:        AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATED : 27th JUNE, 2022.

Heard Mr. Bobade, learned counsel for the applicant.

2. The entire documents necessary for deciding the matter in issue are on record and both the counsels are agreeable to decide the proceedings at the stage of leave itself for the reasons that the dismissal of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is based upon an admission by the complainant.

3. Mr. Bobade, learned counsel for the applicant submits, that cheque bearing No. 711760 dated 15.07.2016 for the amount of Rs. 2,80,000/- drawn on S.B.I., Jayprakash Nagar Branch, Nagpur, was issued in favour of the complainant by the accused on account of repayment to hand loan given by the complainant to the accused. The cheque was presented on 16.07.2016 but was returned for want of insufficient funds vide memo 2 11.APPA.211-2022.odt

dated 16.07.2016, whereupon a notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, was issued on 23.07.2016, which was not replied. The notice as well as the complaint indicates, that the basis of the issuance of the cheque was on account of a hand loan which is claimed to have been given by the complainant to the accused from time to time as is detailed in para 2 of the impugned judgment. The complaint thereafter has been filed. The complainant entered into the witness box. In cross-examination conducted on 23.10.2021 (para 9 page 9 of the pursis dated 14.06.2022), the complainant admitted, that the accused had never received any amount on account of a hand loan from him at any point of time, based on which admission, the learned Special Court by the impugned judgment dismissed the complaint holding that the issuance of cheque for legal liability was not proved.

4. Mr. Bobade, learned counsel for the applicant, raises a ground that the complainant is conversant with Punjabi language, and therefore, in the cross-examination when the question was put to him, having not understood it properly, he gave the above said admission. That is the only ground which is raised for grant of leave.

5. Mr. Damle, learned counsel for the non-applicant, opposed the grant of leave contending that this cannot be a ground for grant of leave.

6. A perusal of the documents placed on record 3 11.APPA.211-2022.odt

would indicate, that the evidence on affidavit of the complainant was placed on record at Exh. 10 on 27.02.2017. The further chief was recorded on 05.04.2017 by the learned Special Court, in which, the documents have been exhibited from Exh. 10 to Exh. 19. The further examination-in-chief has been recorded in Marathi. The cross-examination was recorded on 23.10.2021, that too in Marathi. During the entire duration from 05.04.2017 till 23.10.2021 or for that matter even till the judgment was pronounced, no grievance whatsoever has been raised by the complainant contending that he was not able to understand Marathi language, and therefore, that is the cause why the admission has come on record. Even, the further examination-in-chief of the complainant, in which, the documents have been exhibited, is in Marathi, which would indicate that the complainant was well conversant with Marathi language. That being the position, since the admission is the sole ground for dismissal of the complaint and the sole contention raised is regarding not understanding the Marathi language which as discussed above cannot be held to be the case, I do not see any reason to grant any leave.

7. The application is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.

Signed By:SHRIKANT

JUDGE DAMODHAR BHIMTE

Signing Date:28.06.2022 16:56 SD. Bhimte