[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Chitradevi Narendra Kumar Baldota vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr. on 22 December, 2025
10-ALP-458-2018.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
rrpillai CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 458 OF 2018
Chitradevi Narendra Kumar ....Applicant
Baldota
vs.
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
and Another
Mr.Somnath Vora for the Applicant.
Ms. Shilpa G. Talhar, APP for the State.
CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.
DATED : 22nd DECEMBER 2025
ORDER:
1. This application is filed under Section 378(4) of the
Criminal Procedure Code by the original complainant for leave
to file appeal to challenge the order passed by the trial court
acquitting respondent no. 2 ('respondent') for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that issuance
of cheque by the accused is not disputed. In view of the
Digitally
signed by
RAJESHWARI
RAJESHWARI RAMESH
RAMESH PILLAI
2025.12.23
13:37:05
+0530
10-ALP-458-2018.doc
contract between the parties the accused was under obligation
to complete the work under the terms and conditions of the
contract. Despite calling upon the accused to complete the
work, he left it incomplete; hence, the applicant deposited the
cheque issued by the accused. He submits that for carrying out
work as per the contract, the complainant had paid amounts to
the accused by way of bank transfer, however, the accused left
the work incomplete, hence, he was liable to make the
payment of the cheque. Since cheque was dishonoured the
demand notice was issued. The accused failed to comply with
the demand hence the complaint was filed. He submits that
presumption under Sections 119 and 139 are in favour of the
complainant. The respondent has not led any evidence to rebut
the presumption.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant points out the
impugned judgment where the trial court has recorded the
answer to point no. 1 in the affirmative. He therefore submits
that despite recording the findings to point no. 1 for issuance of
cheque towards discharge of legally enforceable liability in the
affirmative, the trial court has acquitted the respondent. He
10-ALP-458-2018.doc
submits that there is sufficient material on record which is also
considered by the trial court, however has acquitted the
accused. Hence, leave to file appeal be granted.
4. I have perused the judgment and the evidence annexed
to the application. The contract between the parties for
construction of the bungalow is not in dispute. The accused
was entrusted work to carry out construction. Accordingly, the
payments were made by the complainant. It is the
complainants' case that the work was left incomplete, hence
the cheque was deposited.
5. In reply to the demand notice the accused has contended
that he had requested time to complete the pending work. He
further contended that the dishonoured cheque was issued
towards security and the complainant was not entitled to
deposit the same as the amount had not become due and
payable.
6. The complainant has not stepped into the witness box to
prove the allegations that the cheque issued towards security
had become due and payable. The complainant has examined
her power of attorney holder who in response to the
10-ALP-458-2018.doc
suggestions in the cross-examination has pleaded ignorance
about the material particulars regarding completion of the work.
The accused has examined himself to support his defence that
the dishonoured cheque was issued only by way of security
and the same was not deposited for any amount due and
payable from the accused. He has stated that he completed
96% of the work and the entire material was also on the site.
However, he was asked to stop the work and accordingly he
along with the labourers had vacated the site. He has therefore
stated that there was no fault on his part about the incomplete
work. Even otherwise, the cheque issued towards security
could not have been deposited in the absence of any amount
becoming due and payable from the accused.
7. The trial court has considered the entire evidence and
recorded findings on the defence raised by the accused.
Though in the paragraph for framing points for determination
the findings is stated as in the affirmative, the trial court has
recorded substantial reasons for acquitting the accused on the
ground that legally enforceable debt on the part of the accused
was not proved by the complainant. The trial court therefore
10-ALP-458-2018.doc
held that the basic ingredients of the existing legally
enforceable liability or debt was not fully explained and proved
by the complainant, hence the order of acquittal.
8. Considering the evidence on record, the view taken by
the trial court is a plausible view that could have been taken
based on the evidence on record. There can be interference in
an appeal against acquittal if, after reappreciation of evidence,
the only conclusion that could be drawn is that the guilt of the
accused is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In the present
case, there is no ground for granting leave to file an appeal
against the order of acquittal.
9. The application is dismissed.
(GAURI GODSE, J.)
