Govind S/O. Bansilal Baldi vs Kashiram S/O. Devidas Jadhav
2023 Latest Caselaw 5465 Bom

                                        1                      43-CRA-128-2017.odt




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

            CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.128 OF 2017

                    GOVIND S/O. BANSILAL BALDI
                                 VERSUS
                   KASHIRAM S/O. DEVIDAS JADHAV
                                    ...
     Advocate for Applicant : Mr. M.P. Tripati h/f Mr. N. B. Khandare
              Advocate for Respondent : Mr. S.A. Wakure
                                   ....

                                   CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J.

                                   DATE     : 12.06.2023

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of learned

respective counsels heard finally.

2. The learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the

respondent/accused admitted the issuance of the cheque. Therefore, he

cannot deny the contents of the cheque. Once the cheque is delivered

though blank the drawee has a right to complete the cheque, therefore

dates of payment of hand loan differently mentioned in different places

are immaterial.

3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused would submit

that, the cheque in dispute was never issued for the return of the loan. It

was obtained for security. The notice was served upon the complainant to

2 43-CRA-128-2017.odt

return the blank cheque. The said notice was not replied. However, that

apart, the complainant is not sure about the date of issuance of the

cheque. At one place, it has been mentioned that the cheque was issued

on 15.06.2011 and on another places it was allegedly issued on

30.05.2011 and 04.07.2011. This discrepancy was obviously raises a

serious doubt about the issuance of the cheque in dispute. The learned

trial Court as well as appellate Court has examined the evidence correctly.

The date of issuance of cheque has relevance to the cause of action. Both

Courts have correctly disbelieved the complainant and dismissed the

application.

4. The applicant could not satisfy the Court that there are

apparent errors of the law on the face of record that warrant interference

in the impugned judgments and orders. The petition is devoid of

substance, hence liable to be dismissed. Hence, the following order :-

ORDER

(i) The revision application stands dismissed.

(ii) Record and proceeding be returned to the Court of the learned

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambajogai.

(iii) Rule stands discharged.

( S. G. MEHARE ) JUDGE ysk