Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: 1 C.C.No.776/SS/2018
.. Judgment ..
MHMM180044372018
Filed on : 10.04.2018.
Decided on : 07.04.2022.
Duration : 03Y 11M 28D.
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
58TH COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI.
(Presided over by M.Y.Wagh)
Particulars of offence: Exh. 26
A. The serial number of the
case
: C.C. No.776/SS/2018
(CNR NO.MHMM180044372018)
B. The date of commission of
the offence
: 26.03.2018
C. The name of the
complainant (if any)
: J. Kumar Developers Pvt. Ltd.
16A, Andheri Industrial Estate,
Veera Desai Road, Andheri(W),
Mumbai400 053.
Represented by Mr.Vijay Chhaparia
R/o.C/309, Gautam Nager Bldg.
No.1, Near Ambe Mata Temple,
Rajesh Hotel Lane, Bhayander(W),
Thane401101.
D. The names of the accused
persons, and their
parentage and residence
: Mr. Mukund Amit Chaudhary
Proprietor of Manu Holding &
Securities. 578, Bharat Industrial
Estate, Seweree, Mumbai400015.
E. The offence complained of
or proved
: U/sec.138 of the Negotiable
Instrument Act, 1881.
-- 1 of 4 --
2 C.C.No.776/SS/2018
.. Judgment ..
F. The plea of the accused
and their examination (if
any)
: The accused pleaded not guilty.
G. The final order : The accused is acquitted.
H. The date of such order : 07.04.2022
Rizwan Merchant & Associates : Ld. advocate for the complainant.
Accused in person
J U D G M E N T
(Delivered on 07.04.2022)
1. Following points arise for my determination to which I have
recorded my findings before them for the reasons discussed there below.
POINTS FINDINGS
1. Does the complainant prove that the
accused has issued five cheques bearing
1) No.009682 2) No. 009683 3) No. 009684,
4) No. 009685 and 5) No. 009686 all dated
09.01.2018 each of Rs.15,00,000/ in favour
of the complainant to discharge the debt or
liability and the cheques were dishonored for
the reason “Stop Payment By Drawer”?
Negative.
2. Does the complainant prove that after
service of the demand notice under
Sec.138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act
the accused failed to make the payment of
cheque amount and thereby committed the
Negative.
-- 2 of 4 --
3 C.C.No.776/SS/2018
.. Judgment ..
offence punishable under sec. 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act?
3. What order? Accused is acquitted.
REASONS
As to point Nos.1 and 2 :
2. The complainant company has examined its representative
Mr.Vijay Chhaparia. He has filed affidavit in lieu of examinationinchief at
Exh.07. He has filed the disputed five cheques bearing 1) No.009682 2)
No. 009683 3) No. 009684, 4) No. 009685 and 5) No. 009686 all dated
09.01.2018 each of Rs.15,00,000/ in favour of the complainant drawn on
Oriental Bank of Commerce, Thane(W) branch at Exhs.14, 16, 18, 20 and
Exh. 22, cheque dishonour memos at Exh.13, 15, 17, 19 and Exh.21,
Complainant bank account statement at Exh.23, postal receipt at Exhs.24
and Exh.25. The witness stated that accused is agent between the
complainant and one Mr. Bhaskar Narayant Shetty. Mr. Bhaskar Shetty
agreed to sell one plot to the complainant for consideration of
Rs.17,00,00,000/. The accused was acting as an agent of Mr. Bhaskar
Shetty he was agreed with various terms including to complete the process
of loading maximum permissible TDR with 90 days from date of
uploading. But accused failed to comply the terms. Therefore, he issued
disputed five cheques. Though witness has filed affidavit in lieu of
examination in chief he was remained absent for his cross examination.
Therefore, the Court has closed his evidence on 30.03.2022. The
complainant has not examined any other witness. Accordingly, I hold that
the evidence of the complainant cannot be considered and relied upon.
The complainant has not proved that the accused had issued disputed
-- 3 of 4 --
4 C.C.No.776/SS/2018
.. Judgment ..
cheques for discharge his legal liability. Therefore, the complainant is
failed to prove his case that accused issued the cheques for discharge his
legal liability. The material ingredients of the offence punishable
u/sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are not proved. In the result,
I hold that the complainant is failed to prove his case against the accused.
Accordingly, I recorded my findings negative as to point Nos.1 and 2.
3. As complainant failed to prove its case, I hold that accused is
entitled to be acquitted. In the result, I proceed to pass following order
ORDER
1. Accused Mukund Amit Chaudhary is hereby acquitted for the offence
punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
in view of section 255(1) of The Criminal Procedure Code.
2. The bail bond of the accused is cancelled.
3. The original documents filed by complainant be returned to him after
the appeal period.
(Judgment is dictated and pronounced in the open Court).
(M.Y.Wagh)
Mumbai, Metropolitan Magistrate,
Date : 07.04.2022. 58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
ard/
Dictated on : 07.04.2022.
Typed on : 07.04.2022.
Signed on : 07.04.2022.
-- 4 of 4 --