Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 97, 98 and 99 of 2015. Case: Govind B. Prabhugaonkar Vs Romaldina Barreto E. Carneiro and Ors.. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 97, 98 and 99 of 2015 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Shailesh Redkar, Advocate and For Respondents: John A. Lobo, Advocate |
| Judges | C. V. Bhadang, J. |
| Issue | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 313; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 73; Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 |
| Judgement Date | December 17, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
C. V. Bhadang, J.
-
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Mr. Lobo, learned Counsel waives service for the respondent No. 1. Heard finally, by consent of the parties.
-
All these petitions involve common and connected questions of law and fact. They are between the same parties. As such, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
-
The petitioner is a complainant in three different cases filed against the respondent No. 1 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the N.I. Act, for short). It is contended that three cheques were issued by the respondent No. 1, towards legally enforceable liability, which were dishonoured on account of insufficient funds, which led the petitioner to proceed against the respondent No. 1, under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
-
According to the respondent No. 1, he had obtained a hand loan of Rs. 25,000/- from the petitioner and had agreed to repay the said amount with interest at the rate of 10% per month. It is contended that by way of security, the respondent No. 1 had handed over five blank cheques, duly signed by him. It is contended that although, the amount was returned alongwith interest of Rs. 2,500/-, the petitioner failed to return the cheques. It is contended that the petitioner got the cheques filled in with three separate amounts, namely, Rs. 2,00,000/-, Rs. 6,00,000/- and Rs. 3,00,000/- and thereafter filed the complaints.
-
Undisputedly, the respondent No. 1 had earlier filed an application, seeking reference of the subject cheques for opinion of the handwriting expert, which was rejected by the learned Magistrate by an order dated 26.11.2014, on the ground that the petitioner/complainant was yet to begin the evidence and as such, the application was premature. Subsequently, after the petitioner led his evidence and the statement of respondent No. 1 was recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, yet another application came to be filed, for referring the subject cheques for opinion of the handwriting expert. That application has been allowed by the learned Magistrate by order dated 27.04.2015. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court.
-
I have heard Mr. Redkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Lobo, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1. I have perused the impugned order, as passed.
-
It is submitted by Mr. Redkar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner that two successive applications were not...
To continue reading
Request your trial