Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Judgment .
Pdf Text: C.C. NO. 5602877/SC/20223 ::1:: JUDGMENT
(Para 44(i) of Chapter VI of Criminal Manual)
MHMM120096
462022 IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE
FIRST CLASS, 56th COURT,
MAZGAON, MUMBAI
(Presided over by Shri. D. A. Argade)
Date of Judgment 30/04/2026
C.C.No.5602877/SC/2022
Offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881
Complainant Dhirajlal M. Thadeshwar
Age : 72 years, Occupation : Business
Address : B/34. Building No.4, Vivekanand
Nagar, S. V. Road, Borivali(W) Mumbai
Through Constituted Attorney
Manoj Ratnakar Kanchavde
Age : 48 years, Occupation : Service
Represented
by
Adv. Jayesh J. Kanani
Accused 1) Suhit Jayesh Jhaveri
Proprietor of Soyuz Handmade Paper Industries,
Age : 46 years, Occupation : Business,
Address : 67-B, Shanti Nagar, 98, Napean Sea
Road, Opposite Chndralok Malabar Hill, Mumbai
2) M/s. Soyuz Handmade Paper Industries
4th Ghodapdev Cross Road
Opposite : Ghodapdev Masjid, Reay Road,
Mumbai
Represented
by
Adv. Sangoi
(Para 44(ii) of Chapter VI of Criminal Manual)
Date of offence 11/07/2022
Date of FIR/Complaint 21/07/2022
-- 1 of 21 --
C.C. NO. 5602877/SC/20223 ::2:: JUDGMENT
Date of Charge sheet ---
Date of Framing of Charge / Plea 26/09/2022
Date of commencement of evidence 21/07/2023
Date on which judgment is reserved ---
Date of the Judgment 30/04/2026
Date of the Sentencing order, if any ---
Accused Details
Rank
of the
Accu
sed
Name
of
Accuse
d
Dat
e of
Arr
est
Date
of
Rele
ase
on
bail
Offenc
e
charge
d with
Wheth
er
acquitt
ed or
convic
ted
Sentence
imposed
Period of
Detention
undergone
during Trial
for purpose
of Section
428 Cr.P.C.
1 Suhit
Jayesh
Jhaveri
--- --- U/s.138
of N.I.
Act
Acquitt
ed
--- ---
2 M/s.
Soyuz
Handm
ade
Paper
Industr
ies
--- --- U/s.138
of N.I.
Act
Acquitt
ed
--- ---
Para 44(iii) of Chapter VI of Criminal Manual)
LIST OF PROSECUTION / DEFENCE / COURT
WITNESSES
A. Prosecution:
Rank Name Nature of Evidence
(Eyewitnesses, Police Witnesses, Expert
Witnesses, Medical Witnesses, Panch
witnesses, other witnesses)
-- 2 of 21 --
C.C. NO. 5602877/SC/20223 ::3:: JUDGMENT
1 Manoj
Ratnakar
Kanchavde
Constituted Attorney of Complainant
B. Defence Witnesses, if any:
Rank Name Nature of Evidence
(Eyewitnesses, Police Witnesses, Expert
Witnesses, Medical Witnesses, Panch
witnesses, other witnesses)
--- --- ---
C. Court Witnesses, if any:
Rank Name Nature of Evidence
(Eyewitnesses, Police Witnesses, Expert
Witnesses, Medical Witnesses, Panch witnesses,
other witnesses)
--- --- ---
LIST OF PROSECUTION / DEFENCE/ COURT EXHIBITS
A. Prosecution:
Sr.No. Exhibit No. Description
1 8 Power of Attorney
2 9 Letter dated 26/07/2022issued by
Saraswat Bank
3 10 Request Letter dated 27/04/2019
4 11 Personal Information of accused and
his wife
5 12 Undertaking dated 30/04/2019
6 13 Declaration and Confirmation
7 14 Bill of Exchange dated 30/04/2019
8 15 Disputed Cheque
9 16 Cheque Return Memo
10 17 Demand Notice
11 18 Postal Receipt
-- 3 of 21 --
C.C. NO. 5602877/SC/20223 ::4:: JUDGMENT
12 19 Postal Track Report
B. Defence:
Sr.No. Exhibit
Number
Description
--- --- ---
C. Court Exhibits:
Sr.No. Exhibit
Number
Description
--- --- ---
D. Material Objects:
Sr.No. Material Object
Number
Description
--- --- ---
J U D G M E N T
(Delivered on 30/04/2026)
1. The accused are facing trial for the offence punishable under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (in short ‘the
N.I. Act').
2. The case of complainant in nutshell is as under-
Accused No.1 is the proprietor of accused No.2. They availed bill
of exchange discounting facility of Rs.30 lakh from the
complainant. They signed and issued a request letter dated
27/04/2019 to him. Accordingly, he paid them Rs.30 lakh. They
signed the bill of exchange as acceptors. The amount was
repayable by them in 12 months @1.50%. Accused No.1 provided
his wife’s and his personal information on the letterhead of
accused No.2. They executed confirmation and undertaking,
-- 4 of 21 --
C.C. NO. 5602877/SC/20223 ::5:: JUDGMENT
declaration and confirmation of debt. In discharge of their
liability, they issued the complainant a cheque bearing No.995708
dated 10/06/2022 for Rs.5 lakh. He deposited the cheque in
Indusind Bank, Masjid Bunder branch, Mumbai. On 13/06/2022,
the cheque was dishonoured due to other reason CA Blocked RBI
Guideline. The bank issued the cheque return memo. On
24/06/2022, the complainant issued the accused a demand notice
by post. The same was served upon them on 25/06/2022. They did
not pay the amount demanded within 15 days. Hence, the
complainant filed the complaint.
3. On presentation of the complaint, process was issued against
the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the
N.I. Act. The particulars of the offence were read over and
explained to them in vernacular. Accused No.1 pleaded not guilty
for himself and for accused No.2 and claimed to be tried. Their
statement was recorded vide Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Cr.P.C.’).
4. The following points arise for my determination and I
record their findings, with reasons, as under.
SR. NO. POINTS FINDINGS
1) Does the complainant prove that the
cheque bearing No.995708 dated
10/06/2022 for Rs.5 lakh was drawn by
the accused for the discharge of any debt
or legally enforceable liability? ….. No
2) Does the complainant prove that the
-- 5 of 21 --
C.C. NO. 5602877/SC/20223 ::6:: JUDGMENT
accused dishonoured the above cheque? ….. Yes
3) Does the complainant prove that he
made demand of the cheque amount by
giving a notice in writing to the accused
within 30 days from the receipt of
information from the bank regarding the
return of cheque unpaid? …..Yes
4) Does the complainant prove that the
accused failed to make the payment of
the cheque amount within 15 days from
the receipt of the notice? ….. Not
survived
5) What order? ….. As per
operative
order
R E A S O N S
5. In order to substantiate the allegations levelled against the
accused, the complainant has examined himself. Moreover, he has
relied on power of attorney, request letter, personal information,
confirmation and undertaking, declaration and confirmation, bill
of exchange, disputed cheque, cheque return memo, office copy
of demand notice, postal receipt and postal track report.
6. Now it would be apposite to examine some broad and
general submissions made by both parties. The learned advocate
for the complainant has submitted that the accused issued the
cheque for repayment of principal and overdue charges of bill of
exchange discounting facility. He also submitted that disputed
-- 6 of 21 --
C.C. NO. 5602877/SC/20223 ::7:: JUDGMENT
cheque was dishonoured and the accused did not make the
payment inspite of receipt of the demand notice. Per contra, the
learned advocate for the accused has submitted that the cheque
amount is more than the liability, the complainant is doing illegal
money lending and the cheque was not returned in the account of
the complainant.
7. In order to verify the authenticity of rival arguments, oral
and documentary evidence placed before the Court will have to be
scrutinized. It would be just to scrutinize the evidence while
discussing the points one by one. Before entering into the scrutiny
of the evidence, it is necessary to advert undisputed facts as seen
by the evidence of the complainant and the defence and evidence
of the accused for better appreciation. These are as under-
1) Accused No.1 is a proprietor of accused No.2.
2) The amount mentioned on the disputed cheque
is Rs.5 lakh.
AS TO POINT NO. 1 :-
8. In order to appreciate the controversial aspects, a reference
is required to be made to testimony of the complainant. He has
filed his examination-in-chief by way of an affidavit. On going
through his evidence affidavit, it is seen that the accused availed
bill of exchange discounting facility of Rs.30 lakh from the
complainant. It is further seen in his evidence affidavit that the
accused signed the bill of exchange as acceptors and executed
confirmation and undertaking, declaration and confirmation of
-- 7 of 21 --
C.C. NO. 5602877/SC/20223 ::8:: JUDGMENT
debt. It is also seen in his evidence affidavit that the accused
committed default and in discharge of their liability, they issued
disputed cheque and same was dishonoured due to other reason
CA Blocked RBI Guideline.
9. It has come in evidence affidavit of the complainant that his
power of attorney holder Manoj Kanchvade is working with him
as his manager and he authorized him to file the present
complaint. The power of attorney at exhibit 8 is seen to be
referred to in his evidence affidavit. It is a notarized document. It
shows that Manoj Kanchvade is authorized to institute legal
proceeding and depose on behalf of the complainant. It bears the
signature of the complainant. Therefore, it is clear that Manoj
Kanchvade was authorized by the complainant to institute the
present case.
10. The disputed cheque at exhibit 15 is seen to be referred to in
evidence affidavit of the complaint. It shows accused No.2 as
drawer and the complainant as payee. The amount mentioned on
the said cheque is Rs.5 lakh. The signature of the drawer seen
thereon is the same that of signature of accused No.1 made on his
plea recorded below exhibit 24 and his statement recorded under
Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. at exhibit 30. Therefore, it is clear that
the disputed cheque bears his signature as proprietor of accused
No.2.
11. The letter dated 26/07/2022 issued by Saraswat Bank at
exhibit 9 is seen to be referred to in evidence affidavit of the
-- 8 of 21 --
C.C. NO. 5602877/SC/20223 ::9:: JUDGMENT
complainant. It bears seal of the bank and signature of official of
the bank. It shows that the complainant paid Rs.30 lakh to
accused No.2 through RTGS.
12. The request letter at exhibit 10, the confirmation and
understandings at exhibit 12, the declaration and confirmation of
debt at exhibit 13 and the bill of exchange at exhibit 14 are seen
to be referred to in evidence affidavit of the complainant. The
signatures of executant seen thereon are the same that of the
signature of accused No.1 made on disputed cheque at exhibit 15,
his plea recorded below exhibit 24 and his statement recorded
under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. at exhibit 30. Therefore, it is
clear that the request letter at exhibit 10, the confirmation and
understandings at exhibit 12, the declaration and confirmation of
debt at exhibit 13 and the bill of exchange at exhibit 14 bear his
signature as proprietor of accused No.2.
13. The request letter at exhibit 10, the confirmation and
understandings at exhibit 12, the declaration and confirmation of
debt at exhibit 13 and the bill of exchange at exhibit 14 show that
the accused requested the complainant for bill of exchange
discounting facility of Rs.30 lakh for 12 months for business
purpose and also undertook to pay overdue charges @ 5% p.m.
and cheque bounce charges of Rs.1000/-. The said documents also
show that the accused confirmed the receipt of loan of Rs.30
lakhs by RTGS and agreed to repay with interest @ 1.50% p.m. It
is seen in the bill of exchange that the accused acknowledged the
-- 9 of 21 --
C.C. NO. 5602877/SC/20223 ::10:: JUDGMENT
receipt of Rs.30 lakhs by RTGS and also admitted the liability of
repayment of the same to the complainant on demand.
14. It is the defence of the accused that the cheque amount is
more than the liability. Needless to say that the cheque amount is
Rs.5 lakh. According to the complainant, he advanced the accused
bill of exchange discounting facility of Rs.30 lakh. As per him,
the liability is Rs.30 lakh. He has categorically admitted in his
cross-examination that the accused deposited in his account in all
more than Rs.30 lakh. In his evidence affidavit, he categorically
deposed that after deducting the bill of exchange discounting
charges, the accused would repay Rs.30 lakh to him within 12
months. The above documents show that the accused were to
repay bill of exchange discounting amount Rs.30 lakh to the
complainant. But they already paid him more than Rs.30 lakh.
However, he has deposed in his evidence affidavit that the
accused neglected and to repay the bill discounting amount of
Rs.30 lakh. Surprisingly, nothing is seen in his evidence affidavit
how the accused were liable to pay him Rs.5 lakh. The amount
more than Rs.30 lakh paid by them seems to be bill of exchange
discounting amount including bill of exchange discounting
charges. The cheque amount is Rs.5 lakh. As discussed earlier, the
accused already paid the complainant the amount of the liability
i.e. more than Rs.30 lakh. Therefore, it is clear that there is no
liability on the part of the accused.
15. It is further defence of the accused that the income tax
-- 10 of 21 --
C.C. NO. 5602877/SC/20223 ::11:: JUDGMENT
returns of the complainant do not show the bill of exchange
discounting interest. Though he did not show the same in his
income tax returns, but in this connection, there is decision of
Hon‘ble Bombay High Court in the case of Prakash
Madhukarrao Desai V/s. Dattatraya Sheshrao Desai reported in
(2023)5 Mh.L.J.709. Wherein it has been held that a transaction
not reflected in the books of accounts and/or income tax returns
of the holder of the cheque in due course can be permitted to be
enforced by instituting proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I.
Act in view of the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act
that such cheque was issued by the drawer for the discharge of
any debt or other liability, execution of the cheque being
admitted. In view of the ratio laid down in the decision supra, the
above defence of the accused cannot be sustained.
16. It is also the defence of the accused that the complainant is
doing illegal money lending business and the present transaction
is the part and parcel of such illegal transaction under the
Maharashtra Money-Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014. Section
2(13) of the Maharashtra Money-Lending (Regulation) Act,
2014 defines the loan. Clause (j) of Section 2(13) of the
Maharashtra Money-Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 specifies
that an advance at interest whether of money or in kind but does
not include an advance of any sum exceeding rupees three lakhs
made on the basis of a negotiable instrument as define in the N. I.
Act other than a promissory note. It is no doubt true that the
-- 11 of 21 --
C.C. NO. 5602877/SC/20223 ::12:: JUDGMENT
complainant paid the accused bill of exchange discounting
amount Rs.30 lakh. But it is clear as held earlier that the accused
already paid him more than Rs.30 lakh.
17. Since the above amount was advanced to the accused and
they issued the complainant the cheque to repay the outstanding
amount, a question will arise whether the bill of exchange
discounting facility advanced by the complainant to the accused is
legal or illegal. Section 2(14) of the Maharashtra Money-
Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 defines “money-lender”. It
means- (i) an individual or (ii) an undivided Hindu family or (iii)
a company other than a non–banking financial company regulated
under Chapter III B of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (iv)
an unincorporated body of individuals. If the complainant had a
licence to advance the loan, the same would have been produced
on record. But in van. Section 106 of the Evidence Act deals with
burden of proving fact especially within the knowledge.
Illustration (b) given under the said provision specifies that A is
charged with traveling on a railway without ticket. The burden of
proving that he had a ticket is on him. Therefore, the burden was
on the complainant to prove that he had a licence to advance the
loan. But in van. No such licence is produced on record.
18. To support his argument on the point of money lending
business, the learned advocate for the complainant placed reliance
on decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Ashok
Commercial Enterprises V/s. Hubtown Limited. Wherein it has
-- 12 of 21 --
C.C. NO. 5602877/SC/20223 ::13:: JUDGMENT
been held that on plain reading of the definition of the word
‘loan’, an ‘advance’ of any sum exceeding Rs.3 lakh made on the
basis of negotiable instrument would not fall within the definition
of the word ‘loan’ as defined in the Maharashtra Money-Lending
(Regulation) Act, 2014. The learned advocate for the complainant
also placed reliance on decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court
in Deepak Bhagwandas Raheja V/s. Tikamdas and Associates. It
is on the point that a suit based on dishonoured cheques does not
fall under the purview of Section 13 of the Maharashtra Money-
Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014, if the loan advanced is excluded
under the definition of loan in Section 2(13) of the said Act. In the
present case, the bill of exchange discounting amount is Rs.30
lakh i.e. more than Rs.3 lakh.
19. Moreover, in connection with the point of legality of the
loan, there is a decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Mour
Marbels Industries Pvt. Ld. V/s. Mala Investments through its
Karta Motilal Laxmichand Salecha and others reported in CDJ
2018 BHC 880. Wherein it has been observed as under-
15. Once the amount as lent is not a loan within
the meaning of Section 2(13), there is no question
of application of the provisions of Section 13 of
the Act. In reaching to this conclusion, we are
also supported by the decision of the Division
Bench of this Court in "Parekh Aluminex Ltd. Vs.
M/s.Ashok Commercial Enterprises & Anr." The
Division Bench considering the object of the said
legislation rejected a similar objection on the
applicability of the provisions of the erstwhile
-- 13 of 21 --
C.C. NO. 5602877/SC/20223 ::14:: JUDGMENT
Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946 which was
repealed by the present Act. The Division Bench
held thus:-
17. The Bombay Money-Lenders Act was intended to do away with
a very serious evil in our society. It was intended to keep control
over money-lending transactions and to see that excessive rate of
interest was not charged by money-lenders and the only way that
such control could be maintained was by providing penalties for
doing money-lending business without a proper license from the
State. Therefore, in construing an Act of this nature which takes
away vested rights and curtails freedom of contract in order to give
relief to a particular class, the Court should guard against giving it
an interpretation which would extend its scope. The provisions of
the Act should be interpreted literally and strictly. Section 2(9)(f)
expressly excludes an advance made on the basis of the negotiable
instrument as defined under the Negotiable Instrument Act, from
the definition of the term 'loan'.
20. In our view, in the present case, the loans were advanced by the
respondents to the appellants on the basis of negotiable
instruments other than promissory notes. This is clear from the
facts and circumstances of this case especially the manner in
which the amounts were advanced and cheques were drawn. The
fact that the cheques were forwarded by the appellants to the
respondents after the loans were advanced by RTGS transfers
makes no difference. The amounts were advanced by the
respondents to the appellants and the cheques and the bill of
exchange were issued by the appellant to the respondents as a part
of one composite agreement.
emphasis supplied.
20. In the case of Mour Marbels Industries (supra), the loans
were advanced by the respondents to the appellants on the basis
of negotiable instruments other than promissory notes.
21. Section 4 of the Maharashtra Money-Lending
(Regulation) Act, 2014 specifies that no money-lender shall carry
on the business of money-lending except in the area for which he
has been granted a licence and except in accordance with the
terms and conditions of such licence. Since the complainant has
no licence to advance the loan, he is prevented by the above
-- 14 of 21 --
C.C. NO. 5602877/SC/20223 ::15:: JUDGMENT
provision to do business of money lending.
22. In the present case, bill of exchange discounting facility was
advanced by the complainant to the accused. Though their
liability is not proved in the present case as they already paid him
more than Rs.30 lakh, but they issued him the disputed cheque in
relation to the said bill of exchange discounting facility. In view
of this, the above bill of exchange discounting facility does not
fall within the definition of loan as defined under the Maharashtra
Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014. The complainant can be
protected by Clause (j) of Section 2(13) of the Maharashtra
Money-Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014. Thus, the said loan
transaction is not hit by money lending Act.
23. To support his argument, the learned advocate for the
accused has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India in Raj Kumar Santoshi V/s. Prashant Malik. Wherein it
has been observed that for unlicenced money lending against the
promissory notes, whether accompanying with any other security
such as cheque, title deeds or not, there already exists a statutory
bar in State Money Lending Law. In the present case, there is no
reference of promissory note. Therefore, the decision supra is of
no help to the accused.
24. A question is when did the accused come to know that the
complainant was advancing money without holding a valid
licence. When time come to repay the loan, they cannot take the
shield of the fact that the complainant was not having money
-- 15 of 21 --
C.C. NO. 5602877/SC/20223 ::16:: JUDGMENT
lending licence while advancing money. If this defence is
accepted, it will become an easy source of income to borrow
money from the person not having a money lending licence and
then make an excuse in the Court of law from returning the said
amount. The accused cannot be allowed to take advantage of their
own wrong. But they already paid the complainant more than
Rs.30 lakh. Therefore, the defence of money lending business
raised by the learned advocate for the accused cannot be
sustained.
25. As discussed earlier, it is clear that the accused availed the
bill of exchange discounting facility from the complainant and the
disputed cheque was issued by them to him. It is pertinent to note
that the accused categorically admitted the case of the
complainant in their statement recorded under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C. They stated in their such statement that they want to pay
the complainant as per consent terms. To support his argument,
the learned advocate for the complainant has relied on decision
of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Ramesh Sampatrao
Warkhekar V/s. Pravin Balkisanji Rathi. Wherein the accused
admitted in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the
Cr.P.C. almost all the facts of the complainant. In the said
decision, admission given in statement recorded under Section
313 of the Cr.P.C. was one of the grounds to uphold the
conviction of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. In the
present case, it is proved as discussed earlier that the accused
-- 16 of 21 --
C.C. NO. 5602877/SC/20223 ::17:: JUDGMENT
already paid the complainant more than Rs.30 lakh and they have
no liability of the cheque amount. Hence, the decision supra is of
no help to the complainant.
26. As held earlier, there is no liability on the part of the
accused. Therefore, it cannot be held that there was legally
enforceable liability or debt of Rs.5 lakh i.e. the amount of the
cheque. The presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act places
the evidential burden on the accused, for proving that the cheque
had not been received by the complainant towards legally
enforceable debt. Thus, burden was on the accused to disprove the
existence of any legal liability. They have disproved the existence
of legal liability of Rs.5 lakh i.e. the amount of the cheque.
Therefore, it is not proved that the disputed cheque was drawn by
the accused for the discharge of legally enforceable liability.
Thus, the finding of point No. 1 is recorded accordingly.
AS TO POINT NO. 2 :-
27. It is to be ascertained as to whether the accused dishonoured
the cheque. Black's Law Dictionary defines the term 'Dishonour'
as follows :-
''Dishonour – to refuse to accept or pay a draft or
to pay a promissory note when duly presented. An
instrument is dishonoured when a necessary or
optional presentation is duly made and due
acceptance or payment is refused, or cannot be
obtained within the prescribed time, or in case of
bank collection, the instrument is reasonably
returned by the midnight deadline; or presentation
-- 17 of 21 --
C.C. NO. 5602877/SC/20223 ::18:: JUDGMENT
is excused and the instrument is not duly accepted
or paid.''
28. As seen from testimony of the complainant that he deposited
the disputed cheque in the Indusind Bank, Masjid Bunder branch,
Mumbai. It is also seen in his testimony that on 13/06/2022, the
said cheque was returned with memo by the bank unpaid with
endorsement 'CA Blocked RBI Guideline. The cheque return
memo at exhibit 16 shows that the cheque was returned because
of 'CA Blocked RBI Guideline’ by the accused. But it is the
defence of the accused that the said cheque was not returned in
the account of the complainant. According to him, the bank memo
at exhibit 16 does not show the name of the above branch of
Masjid bunder. The said cheque return memo bears seal of
Indusind Bank Centralized Clearing Cell. It is clear from the said
memo that the cheque was returned by Centralized Clearing Cell
of Indusind Bank. In view of this, the above defence of the
accused cannot be sustained. Therefore, it is proved that the
accused dishonoured the cheque. Thus, the finding of point No.2
is recorded accordingly.
AS TO POINT NO. 3 :-
29. It is to be ascertained as to whether the complainant made
demand of the disputed cheque amount by giving a notice in
writing to the accused within 30 days from the receipt of
information from the bank regarding the return of cheque unpaid.
It has come in the testimony of the complainant that he issued the
-- 18 of 21 --
C.C. NO. 5602877/SC/20223 ::19:: JUDGMENT
accused the demand notice dated 24/06/2022 by post. The office
copy of demand notice at exhibit 17 shows that the complainant
demanded them the amount of disputed cheque.
30. As seen from the postal track report exhibit 19, it was served
upon the accused on 25/06/2022. Needless to say that the said
cheque was returned by the bank unpaid on 13/06/2022.
Therefore, it is proved that the demand notice dated 24/06/2022
issued by the complainant was duly served upon them on
25/06/2022 and the said notice was issued to them within 30 days
from the receipt of information from the bank regarding the return
of the cheque unpaid. Thus, the finding of point No. 3 is recorded
accordingly.
AS TO POINT NO. 4 :-
31. Now it is to be ascertained as to whether the accused failed
to make the payment of the disputed cheque amount within 15
days from the receipt of notice. It is evident from the testimony of
the complainant that the accused did not pay him the cheque
amount despite the receipt of notice. It has come on record that
they already paid more than Rs.30 lakh i.e. more amount than the
cheque amount. As held below point No.1, there is no legally
enforceable liability against the accused. In view of this, no issue
of payment of the cheque amount arises. Hence, making payment
of the disputed cheque amount within 15 days from receipt of
notice does not survive. Thus, the finding of point No. 4 is
recorded accordingly.
-- 19 of 21 --
C.C. NO. 5602877/SC/20223 ::20:: JUDGMENT
AS TO POINT NO. 5 :-
32. In the discussions and the findings recorded below point
Nos. 1 to 4, I have tried to separate the grains from the chaffs i.e.
truth from falsehood. As discussed below point No. 1, it is not
proved that the disputed cheque was delivered for the discharge of
legally enforceable debt or legal liability of Rs.5 lakh. Since the
cheque was not delivered for discharge of legally enforceable debt
or legal liability of Rs.5 lakh, drawer cannot be held guilty under
Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Hence, fundamental ingredient of the
offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is itself lacking in the
present case. In view of this, this Court comes to conclusion that
the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N. I. Act is not
proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore,
they deserve to be acquitted. In the result, following order is
passed.
ORDER
1) The accused are acquitted of the offence
punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 vide section 255(1) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2) The bail bond of accused No.1, if any, stands
cancelled.
3) Accused No.1 shall execute P. R. bond of Rs.
15,000/- with one solvent surety or cash surety in
the like amount vide Section 437A of the Code of
-- 20 of 21 --
C.C. NO. 5602877/SC/20223 ::21:: JUDGMENT
Criminal Procedure, 1973.
(D. A. Argade)
Mazgaon Judicial Magistrate (First Class)
Date 30/04/2026 56th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai
Dictated on 30/04/2026
Typed on 30/04/2026
Ready on 30/04/2026
Signed on 30/04/2026
Rgz.
-- 21 of 21 --