S. M. MODAK
Dhanraj Balkrishna Khond – Appellant
Versus
Jagannath Sudam Sonawane – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Though the small but technical issue has arisen in this appeal and it has become more interesting in view of the detail and thorough arguments advanced by learned Advocate Dr. Warunjikar for the Appellant-Complainant and learned Advocate Ms. Bhakti A. Gadamagaonkar for the Respondent No. 1-accused.
2. Learned Advocate Dr. Warunjikar with all his experience and articulation tried to convince me that statutory notice prior to lodging of prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was given in time. Even on some occasion his colleagues Mr. Aditya Kharkar, Mr. Siddhesh Pilankar also tried their level best to convince me. However to the misfortune of the Appellant, their arguments though attractive have not convinced my conscious. Hence I have no alternative but to dismiss the appeal.
3. The Court of the JMFC Court No. 9, Pune as per judgment dated 27/01/1999 was pleased to acquit the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court framed only one composite point whereby he included all the ingred
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.