Criminal Appeal No. 1144 of 2009. Case: S.V.A. India Ltd. Vs Natural Vitamins Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal No. 1144 of 2009 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: M.G. Shukla i/b Mayur Narendra & Co. and For Respondents: I.B. Singh, Adv. |
| Judges | A. M. Thipsay, J. |
| Issue | Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 |
| Citation | 2016 AllMR 814 (Cri) |
| Judgement Date | January 15, 2016 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
A. M. Thipsay, J.
-
The appellant - a limited Company - is the original complainant. It had prosecuted the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein on the allegation of having committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The respondent No. 1 is a Private Limited Company. After holding a trial, the Metropolitan Magistrate, 20th Court, Esplanade, Bombay found the respondents not guilty, and passed an order of acquittal. The appellant being aggrieved by the said order of acquittal has, after obtaining special leave of this Court, filed the present Appeal. I have heard Mr. M.G. Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant. I have heard Mr. I.B. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
-
For the sake of convenience and clarity, the appellant is hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant' and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as 'the accused'.
-
The case of the complainant was that the accused Company had taken a loan from the complainant Company, and that, towards the repayment of the said loan, had issued two cheques i.e. cheque No. 403203 dated 27th March 1997 for Rs. 3,35,601/- and cheque No. 349541 dated 16th April 1991 for Rs. 16,00,000/-. These cheques were dishonored with the remarks "Exceeds arrangement". Since even after making a demand of the amount of the said cheques, the same was not paid, the complaint came to be filed. The accused No. 2 was one of the signatories to the cheques. The other signatory was not prosecuted by the complainant.
-
The complainant examined one Jitendra Yadav, an Officer serving with the complainant Company, as a witness. The respondent also examined one Chetan Madhiyas as a witness in defence.
-
I have been taken through the entire evidence adduced during the trial. I have carefully gone through the impugned judgment.
-
The learned Magistrate did not accept that the cheques in question had been issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or other liability. He was of the view that the complainant had failed to establish this aspect of the matter.
-
The complainant's witness Jitendra Yadav had, admittedly, no personal knowledge of the loan transaction.
-
Admittedly, Jitendra Yadav had joined the complainant Company after the cheques were issued and dishonored.
-
Though the complainant and the accused No. 1 both were Companies, no record in respect of the loan allegedly given by the complainant Company to the accused Company, was produced. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial