DILIP VIRUMAL AHUJA Vs. REKHA VITHAL PATIL
LAWS(BOM)-2022-7-26
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on July 08,2022

Dilip Virumal Ahuja Appellant
VERSUS
Rekha Vithal Patil Respondents




JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This is an appeal under Sec. 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the complainant against Judgment and Order dtd. 11/1/2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai in Criminal Appeal No. 363 of 2007 preferred by Respondent No.1, allowing the said appeal and setting aside the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence under Sec. 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'N.I. Act') of Respondent No.1 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 30th Court, Kurla, Mumbai in C.C. No. 4825/SS/06 dtd. 3/5/2007.
(2.) Heard Mr.Nayak, learned Advocate for Appellant, Mr.Dave, learned Advocate for Respondent No.1 and Mr.Hulke, learned A.P.P. for Respondent No.2-State. Perused entire record.
(3.) It is the case of Appellant that, he knew Respondent No.1 about six years prior to lodgment of the present complaint. That, Respondent No.1 was in need of money and therefore she approached Appellant and requested for grant of friendly loan of Rs.5,00,000.00 (Rupees Five Lakh Only). Accordingly, Appellant advanced friendly loan of Rs.5,00,000.00 to Respondent No.1. That, Respondent No.1 in discharge of her legal liability towards repayment of said loan issued a cheque in favour of Appellant, bearing No.515582 dtd. 23/3/2006 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000.00 drawn on Central Bank of India, Sion Branch, Mumbai. Appellant deposited the said cheque with his banker for encashment, when the said instrument was dishonoured and returned to Appellant unpaid with a Bank Memo dtd. 24/3/2006 (Exh.P-4) for the reason 'A/C CLOSED'. After receipt of intimation from his bank, Appellant issued statutory demand notice on 10/4/2006 (Exh.P-5) through his Advocate calling upon Respondent No.1 to pay the amount due under the subject cheque within 15 days from the date of receipt of demand notice. The said notice was sent to Respondent No.1 by R.P.A.D. as well as U.C.P. Despite receipt of notice, Respondent No.1 neither complied with the demand made therein, nor replied the notice and therefore Appellant filed present complaint under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act.;


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