Bombay High Court
Nishant Sahakari Gramin Pat Purwatha ... vs Bankatlal S/O Kashinath Amdabadkar on 16 October, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:11034
Judgment Cr.APPEAL-715-2008
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 715 OF 2008
...
Nishant Sahakari Gramin Pat
Purwatha Sanstha Ltd, Akola,
Branch at Karanja,
Through its Branch Mamager,
Shri P.M. Khatle,
Aged 40 yrs, R/o Karanja, District Washim.
... APPELLANT
--VERSUS--
Bankatlal s/o Kashinath Amdabadkar,
Aged 50 yrs, Occu Cultivator,
R/o Ladegoan, Tahsil Karanja,
District Washim.
... RESPONDENT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. D.R. Bhoyar, Advocate h/f Mr. A.P. Tathod, Advocate for
the Appellant.
Ms. K.E. Meshram, Advocate h/f Mr. R.Darda, Advocate for the
Respondent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.APPEAL-715-2008
2
CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J.
DATE : OCTOBER 16, 2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.
2. Admit.
3. The present appeal is filed against the judgment and
order dated 12/09/2008 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Karanja, in Summary Criminal Case No.
161/2005, whereby the complaint filed by the appellant under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, came to
be dismissed, resulting in acquittal of the respondent.
4. Brief facts of the case are that:
The appellant is a registered co-operative society
engaged in extending loans and accepting deposits. On
17/07/2001, the respondent availed a personal loan of
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.APPEAL-715-2008
Rs.50,000/- from the appellant after executing necessary
documents. As the respondent failed to repay the amount, the
appellant made repeated demands for the same. Eventually, on
11/12/2004, the respondent issued a cheque bearing No.
002525, drawn on Janta Commercial Cooperative Bank,
Karanja Branch, for an amount of Rs. 93,189/- towards the
discharge of the alleged outstanding dues. Upon presentation,
the said cheque was dishonoured due to "insufficient funds."
Thereafter, the appellant sent a legal notice to the respondent
on 17/12/2004 demanding payment within 15 days, but the
respondent neither replied to the notice nor paid the amount.
Consequently, the appellant filed a complaint under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Trial Court
issued process, and charges were framed, the respondent
pleaded not guilty and claimed that the cheque was given as a
security towards the loan. During the trial, the appellant
produced evidence including the cheque, notices, and other
documents, while the respondent examined witnesses in his
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.APPEAL-715-2008
defense. The learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint on the
ground that the cheque amount was not legally recoverable as
it exceeded the actual loan amount. The appellant now
challenges the said order by way of the appeal.
5. In order to prove the case, the complainant has
examined himself by filing affidavit at Exh.-16, and placed on
record various documents including the cheque (Exh. 23), bank
memo (Exh. 24), notice dated 17/12/2004 (Exh. 25), postal
receipt (Exh. 26), U.P.C. certificate (Exh. 27), postal envelope
(Exh. 28), copy of original notice (Exh.-29), promissory note
(Exh. 30) and other relevant documents. The respondent
examined three witnesses in defense.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the complainant
/ appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. The
learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Pat Sanstha
had disbursed a loan amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.APPEAL-715-2008
accused/respondent on 17/07/2001. However, the respondent
failed to repay the loan as agreed. On 11/12/2004, the
respondent issued Cheque No.002525 for an amount of Rs.
93,189/- towards repayment of the outstanding loan
installments. It is further submitted that the said cheque was
issued in discharge of lawful debts and liabilities. The learned
counsel also submits that on behalf of the Pat Sanstha, Mr.
Khatle, the complainant, was examined and specifically
deposed that the cheque was issued by the accused in discharge
of a legally enforceable debt. She further states that, it is an
admitted fact that the loan of Rs. 50,000/- was disbursed by the
complainant-Pat Sanstha to the respondent on 17/07/2001. It
is also admitted that the signature on the cheque (Exh.-23)
belongs to the accused. It is also an admitted fact that the
cheque was returned unpaid with the endorsement "insufficient
funds." The statutory demand notice was duly served upon the
respondent is also an admitted fact. Despite receipt of the
notice, the accused/respondent failed to repay the cheque
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.APPEAL-715-2008
amount, and therefore, the case was instituted under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned counsel
further submits that, upon proving the aforementioned facts,
the presumption under Section 139 of the Act operates in
favour of the complainant, and the accused has failed to rebut
the said presumption by adducing the evidence.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
respondent submits that the Trial Court has duly considered all
the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. He further
contends that the amount reflected in the cheque was not
legally recoverable from the respondent, as the claim was
barred by limitation. It is also submitted that the cross-
examination of the complainant brings out material
contradictions and admissions which are sufficient to discredit
the complainant's case. In light of this, the learned counsel
prays for dismissal of the present appeal, submitting that no
interference with the well-reasoned judgment of the Trial Court
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.APPEAL-715-2008
is warranted.
8. Upon consideration of the rival submissions, it is not
in dispute that the respondent/accused had availed a loan of
Rs. 50,000/- on 17/07/2001. The important question that
arises is whether the cheque for Rs. 93,189/- was issued by the
respondent towards the repayment of the said loan amount or
not. From the evidence brought on record, it has emerged
during the cross-examination that the complainant-Pat Sanstha
charged interest at the rate of 18% per annum. As per the
material placed on record, it appears that the loan was availed
on 17/07/2001 amounting to Rs.50,000/- and the cheque was
issued on 11/12/2004. While considering this fact, the Trial
Court has taken much pains in calculating the rate of interest
minutely. From every angle the Trial Court has considered the
case of the complainant and tried to find out whether the
cheque amount of Rs.93,189/- is said to be in discharge of the
loan amount, however, after considering from every angle, the
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.APPEAL-715-2008
Trial Court found that the amount mentioned in the cheque,
i.e., Rs.93,189/- is not tallying with the actual calculations done
by the Court.
9. After going through the evidence on record, I am also
of the view that the cheque amount, i.e., Rs.93,189/- was an
imaginary figure quoted by the Sanstha, and therefore, it
cannot be said to be a legally enforceable debt. When the very
foundation is shattered, then under such circumstances, it is
very difficult to accept the case of the appellant, and therefore,
it cannot be said that the cheque issued by the respondent to
the Pat Sanstha was for the discharge of debt or liability.
Further, presumption under Section 139 is not automatically
raised unless the basic facts are proved, therefore, considering
the entire evidence on record and after going through the
judgement, and on re-appreciation of the evidence, in my
opinion, the Trial Court has not committed any illegality,
perversity and there is no error; findings of the Trial Court are
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.APPEAL-715-2008
based on sound reasoning, and therefore, I decline to interfere
in the finding of fact tendered by the Trial Court. Hence, the
following order:-
ORDER
The Appeal is dismissed.
[ M. M. NERLIKAR, J ]
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
