Advocates:
['BHIDE VINOD Y', 'COPY SERVED ON PP', '', 'K N SHERMALE']

-:(1):-

6687

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

Office

Notes,

Office

Memoranda

of

Coram,

appearance, Court's orders or

directions and Registrar's

orders.

Court's or Judge's orders.

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 6687 OF 2014

SUHAS SHANTARAM DUSHING

VERSUS

VINAYAK BABANRAO CHAVAN AND ANOTHER

...

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Bhide Vinod Y.

Advocate for Respondent No.1: Mr. Ashok B. Nehe.

***

CORAM: T. V. NALAWADE, J.

DATED: 10th August, 2015.

PER COURT:

1.

The application is filed under section 378 (4) of

Cr.P.C. for grant of leave against judgment and order of

STC No.64 of 2011 which was pending in the Court of

learned J.M.F.C., Sangamner. The learned J.M.F.C.

acquitted the respondent, accused of the offence

punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments

Act. Heard learned counsel for the Applicant. Some

hearing was given to the learned counsel for the

Respondent, accused.

2.

Seen the record. Seen the reasoning given by the

1 of 3

-:(2):-

6687

trial Court.

3.

The complainant has contended that out of friendly

relationship he had given Rs.70,000/- to the accused in

April, 2008 and he had collected the money by taking

loan from his credit society. He contended that the

amount was to be repaid within 2 – 3 months but when

the amount was not returned, the complainant

approached the accused and requested him to return the

amount. It is the case of the complainant that for

returning the money the accused gave cheque of

Rs.70,000/- drawn on his bank, dated 22^nd November,

2010. This cheque bounced. Then after following the

procedure, complaint came to be filed.

4.

Complainant has given evidence. The notice was

replied by the accused and he took the defence that he

had taken the loan but that was about 4 years back and

the amount was returned but the cheque, which was

given by way of security, was not returned to him and

that is being misused. The complainant has examined

witnesses to prove that he had resources and after

collecting the money from society he had given the hand

loan. The fact that the hand loan was given is not

2 of 3

-:(3):-

6687

disputed and the accused, has disputed only the year in

which the loan was given. The trial Court has considered

some difference in the ink appearing on the cheque.

This Court holds that there is good and arguable case to

the complainant. At present also, the learned counsel

for the respondent, accused placed reliance on two

reported cases like (i) AIR 2001 SC 3897 [Hiten P.

Dalal V/s Bratindranath Banerjee] and (ii) 2008

Cri.L.J. 1172

[Krishna Janardhan Bhat V/s

Dattatraya G. Hegde]. There cannot be any dispute

about the proposition made in the case of Hiten Dalal.

As there is arguable case, the defence of the accused

need not be considered, at this stage.

5.

In the result, application is allowed. Leave is

granted.

6.

Appeal is admitted.

7.

Notice, after admission. It is waived by learned

counsel for the Respondent.

[T. V. NALAWADE, J.]

Dt.10/08/2015

ans/6687

3 of 3