AJAY RAMESH BHUTE Vs. RAMESH SADASHIV BHUTE
LAWS(BOM)-2011-11-13
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (FROM: NAGPUR)
Decided on November 21,2011

AJAY Appellant
VERSUS
JAI MATADI ELECTRONICS Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SHARAN P KHANNA VS. OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

A. P. Bhangale, J. - (1.)By consent of respective counsel, the matter is taken up for final hearing.
(2.)By this Revision Application, the revision applicants pray for quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 29.11.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Wardha in Criminal Revision No.85/2010 whereby the learned Judge directed the trial Magistrate to appreciate the evidence of complainant to find out whether a case is made out under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The order dated 22.6.2010 passed by the trial Magistrate on Exh. 57 was also set aside.
(3.)It appears that a complaint was lodged by the respondent complainant against the present revision applicants on the ground that the accused no.1 Ajay Ramesh Bhute came in the shop of complainant in order to buy a television of Sansui company for a sum of Rs,19,990/ on credit with promise that the amount of price will be paid soon. Since the proprietor of the complainant M/s Jai Matadi Electronics was on cordial terms with the accused Ajay, he agreed to sell the TV on credit. Pursuant to the transaction, the accused gave a cheque bearing No. 037708 dated 14.9.2006 drawn upon Wardha Nagari Sahakari Adhikosh Bank, Main Branch, Wardha. Accordingly, the cheque was presented; but the Banker by memo dated 15.9.2006 informed the complainant that since the account of the accused was closed, the cheque could not be encashed. Thereafter the complainant sent a notice dated 18.9.2006 by registered post acknowledgment due Which was received by accused no.1 Ajay. Even thereafter he did not pay the price. The notice was also sent under certificate of posting, to which the accused sent reply dated 26.9.2006 and denied the transaction categorically, contending that the cheque given was not drawn upon his own account and it is for the complainant to seek as to on whose account the cheque was drawn. The complainant came to know on enquiry that the accused no.1 had deliberately, in order to harass the complainant, gave cheque which was in fact drawn upon account belonging to accused no.2 Ramesh Sadashiv Bhute, who was also in know of the entire transaction. Thus, both of them had harassed the complainant although they knew that the account was closed. Left with no option, the complainant was constrained to prosecute them for alleged offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, ( in short "the N.I. Act") as also under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.