3-apl-88-96-92-2022.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.88 OF 2022

Premji Khepar Ruparel

…Applicant

Versus

Dr. Niranjan Vijaykumar Shah and Ors.

...Respondents

WITH

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.92 OF 2022

Jeetendra Jaykumar Dharu

…Applicant

Versus

Dr. Niranjan Vijaykumar Shah and Ors.

...Respondents

WITH

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.96 OF 2022

Priti Premji Ruparel

…Applicant

Versus

Dr. Niranjan Vijaykumar Shah and Ors.

...Respondents

….

Mr. Vineet Naik, Senior Advocate a/w Sukand Kulkarni, Mr. Parikshit

Ruparel, Ms. Sayli Shinde i/by M/s. Kartikeya & Associates Advocate

for the Applicants.

Mr. Pratap Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

Mr. A. R. Patil, APP for the Respondent – State.

….

CORAM

:

PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

DATE

:

23^rd JUNE, 2022.

PER COURT

:

1.

The applicants are prosecuted for offence under Section 138

of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 vide C.C. No.558 of 2021

pending before the Court of Joint Civil Judge Junior Division,

Sajakali Jamadar

1 of 10

SAJAKALI

LIYAKAT

JAMADAR

Digitally

signed by

SAJAKALI

LIYAKAT

JAMADAR

Date:

2022.10.07

14:10:18

+0530

3-apl-88-96-92-2022.doc

Saswad. The process was issued by the trial Court vide order dated

16.09.2021 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,

1881. The applicants were impleaded as accused Nos.3, 4 & 5.

2.

The brief facts of the complaints are as follows :-

i)

The accused No.1 is Sugar Factory existing Co-

operative Society registered under the Companies Act.

Accused No.2 is the Chairman and Managing Director of

accused No.1. Accused No.2 looks after whole affairs of and

authorized signatory of accused No.1. Accused No.2 signed

the cheques on behalf of accused Nos.1 to 6. Accused Nos. 3

& 4 are the directors of accused No.1. They are authorized

signatory of accused No.1. Accused No.5 is whole time

director looking after day-to-day affairs and authorized

signatory director of accused No.1. Accused No.6 is the

Company Secretary looking after secretarial, legal matter and

authorized signatory of accused No.1

ii)

The complainant sent the letter for purchase of 4,000

M.T. ‘

A’-grade Molasses from accused No.1. Accordingly

accused No.2 replied for and behalf of accused Nos.1 to 6 by

letter dated 30.10.2017 and agreed to supply 4,000 MT

‘

A’-grade Molasses at the rate of 2,700/- per ton excluding tax

Sajakali Jamadar

2 of 10

3-apl-88-96-92-2022.doc

along with other terms and condition. As per letter dated

31.10.2017, the complainant paid advance payment of

Rs.1,08,00,000/- by RTGS. The accused No.2 on behalf of

accused Nos.1 to 6 and complainant executed agreement on

31.10.2017 for purchase/sale of Molasses. It was agreed that

4,000 m.t. Molasses will be supplied to complainant from

accused No.1 sugar factory commencing of seal on 2017-18 till

completion of order of 4,000 m.t.

iii)

The accused supplied Molasses of 816.840 M.T. for

Rs.22,05,468/- from 5^th January, 2018 to 17^th January 2018.

The accused was supposed to supply 4,000 M.T. Molasses for

season 2017-18, but failed to supply.

iv)

Accused No.2 issued cheques on behalf of accused

Nos.1 to 6 bearing No.151417 of Rs.54,00,000/- and cheque

bearing No.151418 for Rs.54,00,000/-.

v)

The complainant learnt that the accused are supplying

Molasses to others which was in violation of the terms and

conditions of the agreement executed between the

complainant and accused.

vi)

The complainant deposited cheque of Rs.54,00,000/-

dated 24.09.2020 bearing No.151417. It was dishonoured on

Sajakali Jamadar

3 of 10

3-apl-88-96-92-2022.doc

01.10.2020 for the reason ‘Insufficient Funds’. The

complainant deposited cheque dated 24.09.2020 bearing

No.151418 and it was dishonoured on 01.10.2020 for the

reason ‘drawers signature differs’. The demand notice was

issued to the accused. The notice was served upon the

accused. They failed to make the payment. The complaints

were filed.

3.

Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Naik submitted that the