Sudhir S/O. Gopal Hiranwar And ... vs Harish S/O. Purushottam Yelne
2023 Latest Caselaw 2495 Bom

Judgment                              1                20.wp.31.2023 judg.odt




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

            CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.31 OF 2023

     1. Shri Sudhir S/o. Gopal Hiranwar,
      Aged : 57 Yrs., Occ.: Private,

     2. Shri Harish S/o. Gopal Hiranwar,
      Aged : 55 Yrs., Occ.: Private,

     3. Shri Ajay S/o. Gopal Hiranwar,
      Aged : 50 Yrs., Occ. Private,
      All R/o. Plot No. 216, Gopal Bhavan
      Mata Mandir, Gokulpeth, Nagpur                .... PETITIONERS

                              // VERSUS //


     Shri Harish S/o. Purushottam Yelne,
     Aged about 46 Yrs., Occ. Business,
     R/o. Telipura, Pevtha, Itwari, Nagpur         .... RESPONDENT
__________________________________________________________
     Shri C. G. Barapatre, Advocate for the petitioners
     Shri A. R. Dhoble, Advocate for the respondent
__________________________________________________________

                   CORAM : G. A. SANAP, J.

DATED : 15th MARCH, 2023

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with

the consent of learned Advocates for the parties.

Judgment 2 20.wp.31.2023 judg.odt

3. In this petition, challenge is to the order passed by the

learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, (Special Court Under Section 138

of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881), Nagpur, whereby the learned

Magistrate overruled the objection taken by the accused/petitioners for

exhibiting the computerized cheque return memo.

4. It is stated that the computerized cheque return memo

without signature and seal would not have been admitted in evidence by

the learned Magistrate. The learned Advocate for the petitioners submits

that before admitting the document in evidence and exhibiting the

document, learned Magistrate ought to have decided the objection on

the touch stone of the law.

5. Learned Advocate appearing for the complainant/

respondent No.1 in all fairness submits that in order to prove this

computerized cheque return memo/intimation of dishonor of cheque, the

complainant is required to examine the witness from the concerned bank.

Learned Advocate submits that complainant is proposing to examine the

witness from the concerned bank. Learned Advocate submits that

considering the fact that the computerized cheque return memo is

neither signed nor sealed, it has to be proved in accordance with law.

Judgment 3 20.wp.31.2023 judg.odt

6. In my view, this submission advanced on behalf of the

complainant would take care of primary grievance made by the accused.

It is further pertinent to note that the proof of the contents of the

documents, before it is admitted in the evidence, in the fact situation is in

the interest of the complainant. In that sense, the insistence on the part

of the accused to prove the contents of the return memo according to law

is beneficial for the complainant.

7. In the facts and circumstances, the petition can be disposed

of by recording the submission/statement made on behalf of the

complainant. It is made clear that the complainant shall, therefore,

summon the witness from the bank with the relevant record to prove the

contents of computerized cheque return memo. Learned Magistrate as

and when such request is made, shall consider the same in accordance

with law. As such, the grievance of the accused/petitioners stands

redressed. The petition is accordingly disposed of, in the above terms.

8. Rule accordingly.

Signed By:NAMRATA YOGESH
DHARKAR
P. A.                                                                           ( G. A. SANAP, J.)
                                Namrata
High Court Nagpur
Signing Date:16.03.2023 15:15