Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy  of Judgment
Pdf Text: 1 C. C. No. 1901/SS/2018
Filed on : 20/04/2018
Registered on : 20/04/2018
Decided on : 24/02/2023
Duration : 04Y. 10M. 04D.
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
48TH COURT ANDHERI MUMBAI
(Presided over by K. G. Sawant)
Case No. 1901/SS/2018
CNR: MHMM190054622018
Exh. No.
Mr. Prakash Narayan Nakhawa.
An adult, Indian Inhabitant,
Age about 58 years, occu : Business
Address at Nakhawa House, Patil Galli No. 1,
Versova Village, Andheri(W), Mumbai. 400061. ...Complainant
Versus
1. Shri. Sai Sea Foods (Proprietorship Firm)
office address : Block No. 101 & 102,
B5, Shramjivan Premises Co. Operative Society,
Near Wadala Truck Terminus, Wadala (E), Mumbai.
And/or
Block No. 1010, 102 , B5,
Jeevan Co.operative Society,
Near Wadala Truck Terminus, Wadala (E),
Mumbai – 400037
2. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Chakarvarty.
Prop. Of Shri. Sea Foods
office address : Block No. 101 & 102,
B5, Shramjivan Premises Co. Operative Society,
Near Wadala Truck Terminus, Wadala (E), Mumbai.
And/or
Block No. 1010, 102 , B5,
-- 1 of 17 --
2 C. C. No. 1901/SS/2018
Jeevan Co.operative Society,
Near Wadala Truck Terminus, Wadala (E),
Mumbai – 400037 ...Accused
Offence punishable U/s. 138 r/w.
141 of Negotiable Instruments Act
Advocate Shri. S. N. Imam for the complainant.
Advocate Prakash Salsingikar for the accused
JUDGMENT	JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 24/02/2023)
Accused is mired in the trial, for having committed an
offence punishable U/s. 138 r/w. Section 141 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881. (Hereinafter it is referred as 'N.I.Act' in short.)
Bonsai facts of the complaint are as under :
2] It is the case of complainant that, accused No. 1 is the proprietor
of Shri. Sai Sea Foods and accused no. 2 is proprietor of accused no. 1.
Complainant is fisherman and engaged in the business of selling of fish.
He knows the accused in relation to purchase and sale of fishes since
many years. Accused no. 1 is doing the business of hoteling under the
name and style Shri. Sai Sea foods. It is the case of complainant that,
accused no. 2 had given oral purchase order for fresh fish and
accordingly complainant had given “Fresh Ghol Fish” having weight
2453 kilo at the rate of Rs. 365 per Kg. For total price of 8,95,345/. In
order to pay above amount, accused issued cheque bearing No. 106439
dated 10/01/2018 for an amount of Rs. 8,95,000/ drawn from his
account maintained with Abhyudaya Co.Op Bank Ltd., Ghansoli.
-- 2 of 17 --
3 C. C. No. 1901/SS/2018
Complainant presented said cheque with his banker, however vide bank
memo dated 22/01/2018, said cheque returned unpaid for reason
“Funds Insufficient”.
3] It is further case of complainant that, after dishonour of disputed
cheques, he issued statutory demand notice to accused on 09/03/2018,
calling upon them to pay the cheque amount, within stipulated time.
Notice was duly served upon accused on 10/03/2018. Inspite of service
of notice, accused failed to pay cheque amount. As amount claimed in
notice was not paid by the accused, complainant left with no other
option than to knock the door of the court seeking justice and ipso Jure
case came before this court, which was filed on 20/04/2018.
4] After issuance of process, accused appeared and thereafter
substance of accusation was read over to the accused to which he
pleaded not guilty and opt for trial.
5] In order to prove guilt of accused, complainant examined himself
by filing his affidavit in lieu of examinationinchief at Exh. 22 vide
section 145 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Besides oral evidence,
complainant has relied upon following documentary evidence that
includes:
Description of documents Exh. No.
Original disputed cheque Exh. 26
Cheque returned memo Exh. 53
Office copy of demand notice Exh. 27
postal receipts Exh. 28 to 31
returned envelopes Exh. 32 to 35
-- 3 of 17 --
4 C. C. No. 1901/SS/2018
Account statement of complainant Exh. 52
6] After completion of complainant's evidence, statement of accused
vide Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded at Exh. 57, wherein accused
has taken defence of falsely implication. Accused in support of his
defence neither examined himself nor any witness.
7] Complainant has filed his written notes of argument at Exh. 58,
while Ld. Advocate for accused advanced his argument orally .
8] Heard Ld. Advocate for both parties at length. Perused written
notes of argument filed on behalf of complainant. In view of accusation
and argument of both parties, following points arise for my
determination and I have recorded my findings thereon as follows:
Sr.
No.
Points Findings
1. Does complainant prove that disputed
cheques were issued by the accused, in
favour of complainant for discharging legal
enforceable liability?
…. In the
Negative
2. Does complainant prove that disputed
cheques were returned unpaid for reason
“Funds Insufficient”?
….
In the
affirmative
3. Does complainant further prove that he had
issued statutory demand notice to the
accused within limitation demanding cheque
amount ?
…. In the
affirmative
-- 4 of 17 --
5 C. C. No. 1901/SS/2018
4. Does complainant further prove that inspite
of service of notice accused have failed to
pay cheque amount to complainant within
statutory limit?
…. In the
affirmative
5. Whether complaint is filed within period of
limitation? .. In the
affirmative
6. Whether offence U/s. 138 of N.I. Act is
proved against the accused and what order ? ..
In the
negative and
accused is
acquitted.
REASONS
Admitted/undisputed fact
9] Before going further it is necessary to mention
admitted/undisputed facts of this case.
Admittedly disputed cheque is drawn from the
account of accused firm and it bears signature of
accused no. 2.
AS TO POINT NO. 1
10] The accused are roped in the offence punishable u/s. 138 of the
N.I. Act. Upon perusal of relevant provision it is manifest that, to
constitute offence punishable U/s. 138 of N.I. Act following ingredients
are to be fulfilled which are mandatory in nature.
 A person must have drawn a cheque on an account maintained by
him or in case of company or firm from that account maintained
with bank for the payment of certain amount of money to another
person from out of that account for the discharge in whole or in
part, of any debt or other liability.
-- 5 of 17 --
6 C. C. No. 1901/SS/2018
 That the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of
Three months from the date, on which it is drawn or within period
of its validity, whichever is earlier.
 That the cheque is returned by the bank unpaid, either because the
amount of money standing to the credit of the account, is
insufficient to honour the cheque or that exceeds and amount
arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with
the bank or for any other reason.
 The payee or the holder in due course of the cheque makes a
demand for the payment of said amount of money by giving a
notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within 30 days of
the receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding
dishonor of the cheque as unpaid.
 The drawer of the said cheque fails to make payment of said
amount of money to the payee or holder in due course of the
cheque within 15 days from the receipt of the said notice.
 The payee or holder in due course lodged written complaint in the
court within 30 days thereafter.
 The drawer of the said cheque failed to rebut the presumption u/s.
118 and 139 of the N.I. Act.
11] Before going further, it is necessary to mention here that, as per
Section 139 of N.I. Act, there is a presumption in favour of holder of
cheque. So also as per Section 118 of the Said Act, there is a
presumption that said cheque was issued for certain consideration. For
ready reference Section 118 and 139 of the said act are quoted below:
Sec. 118Presumptions as to negotiable instruments. Until the
contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:
a) of consideration. that every negotiable instrument was
made or drawn for consideration, and that every such
instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or
-- 6 of 17 --
7 C. C. No. 1901/SS/2018
transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred
for consideration;
b) as to date. that every negotiable instrument bearing a date
was made or drawn on such date;
c) as to time of acceptance. that every accepted bill of
exchange was accepted within a responsible time after its date
and before its maturity;
d) as to time of transfer . that every transfer of a negotiable
instrument was made before its maturity;
e) as to order of indorsements. that the indorsements
appearing upon a negotiable instrument were made in the
order in which they appear thereon;
f) as to stamp. that a lost promissory note, bill of exchange or
cheque was duly stamped;
g) that holder is a holder in due course. that the holder of a
negotiable instrument is a holder in due course:
Provided that, where the instrument has been obtained from its
lawful owner, or from any person in lawful custody thereof, by
means of an offence or fraud, or has been obtained from the
maker or acceptor thereof by means of an offence or fraud, or
for unlawful consideration, the burden of proving that the
holder is a holder in due course lies upon him.
Section 139. Presumption in favour of holder. It shall be
presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a
cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in Section
138, for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other
liability.
-- 7 of 17 --
8 C. C. No. 1901/SS/2018
12] Being cumulative, it is only when all above mentioned
ingredients are satisfied, then the person who had drawn the cheque
can be deemed to have been committed an offence u/s .138 of the Act.
For the purpose of section 138, debt or other liability means a legally
enforceable debt or other liability. To understand the spirt of provisions
contemplated vide section 138 to 141 of Negotiable Instrument Act,
Section 139 of the said act plays significant role. In view of express
provision of section 139 of N.I. Act, a presumption shall be drawn that
the holder of cheque, received the cheque, of the nature referred to in
Section 138 for the discharge of any debt or other liability, unless
contrary is proved. Thus, it gives power to court to presume unless
contrary is proved that the holder of cheque received the cheque for
discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability. The word
“shall presume” as per Section 4 of Indian Evidence Act means
whenever it is directed by this act, that the court shall presume a fact, it
shall regard such fact as a proved unless and until it is disproved. Thus,
the burden of proof as to cheque has not been issued as a legal debt or
liability is always on accused and it is for him to rebut said
presumption. A useful guidance on the said point can be taken from the
verdict delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goa Plast
Pvt. Ltd. V/s .Chico D'souza (2004 SCC (cri) 499) wherein the court
has considered the object behind section 138 and 139 of the N.I. Act
and held that the entire burden is on accused to show that cheque was
not issued for any debt or liability as mentioned in the complaint.
Hon'ble Court has further held that presumption u/s. 139 is a rebuttable
and it can be rebutted on the basis of evidence brought by the
complainant or by leading his own evidence. The standard of proof for
rebutting the presumption is preponderance of probabilities which is a
-- 8 of 17 --
9 C. C. No. 1901/SS/2018
standard applicable to the accused whenever accused is required to
prove a fact.
13] In order to prove his case, complainant examined himself by
filing his affidavit of examinationinchief at Exh 22, wherein he has
reiterated his case from the complaint. His evidence shows that, he had
sold out 2453 kg. “Ghol Fish” at the rate of Rs. 365 per kg to the
accused. His evidence shows that in order to pay amount of said fish at
above rate, accused issued cheque of Rs. 8,95,000/ in his favour.
14] Ld. Advocate for accused conducted crossexamination of
complainant at length. In crossexamination, it has come on record
that, in the year 2017 annual transaction of complainant's business was
Rs. 40,00,000/ to 50,00,000/ and annual profit was Rs. 9,00,000/ to
10,00,000/. His evidence further shows that he used to submit
incometax return. However, he don't remember whether in I.T. return
of 2017 he has shown amount receivable from the accused. He further
stated that in order to catch the fish, he use the boat and one boat
returns after 810 days by taking fish to the extent of 700 kg to 3000 kg.
He further admitted that, he has sold out large quantity of fish to the
customers and received amount in cash from them. His evidence
further shows that he don't have any documentary evidence to show
that he had sold out fish to the accused. He also don't have any
documentary evidence to show that before disputed transaction accused
had purchase fish from him. He further stated that he don't have
mobile number of accused with him in any form i.e. either stored in
mobile or written on diary.
-- 9 of 17 --
10 C. C. No. 1901/SS/2018
15] It is the defence of accused that, no any transaction was taken
place between him and accused as mentioned in the complaint.
According to him, disputed cheque was given by him to M/s. Wilson
Fish through its proprietor Sohel Bhai. Complainant has denied
suggestion that said cheque was handed over to him by Mr. Sohel Bhai.
According to accused, Sohel Bhai had given three cheques of accused to
the complainant. However, complainant has denied said suggestion but
to next question complainant has stated that, he don't remember that
there was transaction between him and Sohel Bhai and he has put his
name in the column of payee on the cheque which was given by Mr.
Sohel Bhai to him. Thus, though he earlier denied that, disputed
cheque was issued by Mr. Sohel Bhai to him, but further stated that he
don't remember that said cheque was issued by Mr. Sohel Bhai to him
and by putting his name in that cheque, present complaint was filed by
him.
16] Ld. Advocate for accused in support of his argument relied upon
judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Ghanshamdas Lalchand Chandak V/s. Sheikh Hamid Sheikh Gulab,
2018, ALL M.R. (Cri) 2436 wherein Hon'ble Supreme court has
observed as under:
“14. The settled position of law is that if the signature on the cheque is
admitted, the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Act stands
activated and the accused is obligated to rebut the presumption before
the burden of proving the existence of debt or liability shifts to the
complainant. However, the accused need not adduce direct evidence and
is entitled to rely on the material brought 14 apeal536.06 on record,
during the evidence of the complainant, or otherwise, to rebut the
statutory presumption. The burden on the accused of proving the non
existence of debt or liability is duly discharged if the accused brings on
record, on preponderance or probabilities, that the existence of a legally
enforceable debt or liability is doubtful. ”
-- 10 of 17 --
11 C. C. No. 1901/SS/2018
17] M/s. Pakdhane Cement House v/s. Ramesh Sheshrao
Deshmukh, 2012 ALL M.R. (Cri) 2592 wherein Hon'ble High Court
has quoted the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme court has follows:
“6. At this stage, reference must be made to the ruling in the case of
Kumar Exports vs. Sharma Carpets reported in (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 823.
In that case, the Apex Court was considering the aspect of rebuttal of
presumption u/ss.139 and 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
It was held that presumptions u/s. 118 and 139 comes into existence as
soon as the complainant proves that negotiable Instrument was
executed by the accused. However, those presumptions are rebuttable
and standard of proof required for rebuttal is not as heavy as that of the
complainant.
Burden of proof can be shifted back to the complainant when accused
produce sample convincing substantial evidence for to disbelieve the
complainant's case. In that case, the Apex Court observed that the
complainant was given sufficient opportunity to prove the transaction of
sale of woolen carpets, but it became evident that no transaction of sale
of woolen carpets had taken place between the complainant and the
accused and there was no existing debt in discharge of which the accused
was expected to issue the cheque to the complainant. In the
circumstances, it was held that the accused has discharged the onus of
proving that the cheque was not received by the holder in discharge of
debt or liability. Under those circumstances, defence of the accused that
the blank cheques were obtained by the complainant as advance payment
becomes probable and the onus of burden would shift on the
complainant since the complainant did not produce any Books of Account
or Stock Register maintained by him in the course of his regular business
or any acknowledgment for delivery of goods to establish transaction of
sale of woolen carpets for a specified sum.”
Finally, in the judgment Hon'ble High Court has held that complainant
has failed to adduce any evidence regarding sale of cement bags as
averred in the complaint.
18] On the other hand, Ld. Advocate for complainant has submitted
that, as per case of accused disputed cheque was handed over by him to
the Sohel Bhai. However, he did not explain as to how name of
complainant is shown in the column of payee. He further argued that,
it is not the case of accused that he had given blank signed cheque to
-- 11 of 17 --
12 C. C. No. 1901/SS/2018
Mr. Sohel Bhai. Why accused had not issued any letter to Sohel Bhai
demanding back his cheques. Saying so, he submitted that accused has
failed to rebut presumption u/s .139 of N.I. Act. In support of his
argument, he relied upon judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel V/s. State of Gujarat & Anr.,
2019 ALL SCR (Cri) 753 wherein in para no. 16 has observed as
under:
“16. On the aspects relating to preponderance of probabilities, the
accused has to bring on record such facts and such circumstances which
may lead the Court to conclude either that the consideration did not
exist or that its non existence was so probable that a prudent man
would, under the circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that the
consideration did not exist. This Court has, time and again, emphasized
that though there may not be sufficient negative evidence which could
be brought on record by the accused to discharge his burden, yet mere
denial would not fulfil the requirements of rebuttal as envisaged under
Section 118 and 139 of the NI Act. This court stated the principles in the
case of Kumar Exports (supra) as follows:
"20. The accused in a trial under Section 138 of the Act has two
options. He can either show that consideration and debt did not
exist or that under the particular circumstances of the case the non
existence of consideration and debt is so probable that a prudent
man ought to suppose that no consideration and debt existed. To
rebut the statutory presumptions an accused is not expected to
prove his defence beyond reasonable doubt as is expected of the
complainant in a criminal trial. The accused may adduce direct
evidence to prove that the note in question was not supported by
consideration and that there was no debt or liability to be
discharged by him. However, the court need not insist in every case
that the accused should disprove the non existence of consideration
and debt by leading direct evidence because the existence of
negative evidence is neither possible nor contemplated. At the same
time, it is clear that bare denial of the passing of the consideration
and existence of debt, apparently would not serve the purpose of
the accused. Something which is probable has to be brought on
record for getting the burden of proof shifted to the complainant.
To disprove the presumptions, the accused should bring on record
such facts and circumstances, upon consideration of which, the
court may either believe that the consideration and debt did not
exist or their nonexistence was so probable that a prudent man
would under the circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that
they did not exist. Apart from adducing direct evidence to prove
that the note in question was not supported by consideration or that
he had not incurred any debt or liability, the accused may also rely
upon circumstantial evidence and if the circumstances so relied
-- 12 of 17 --
13 C. C. No. 1901/SS/2018
upon are compelling, the burden may likewise shift again on to the
complainant. The accused may also rely upon presumptions of fact,
for instance, those mentioned in Section 114 of the Evidence Act to
rebut the presumptions arising under Sections 118 and 139.
21. The accused has also an option to prove the nonexistence of
consideration and debt or liability either by letting in evidence or in
some clear and exceptional cases, from the case set out by the
complainant, that is, the averments in the complaint, the case set out
in the statutory notice and evidence adduced by the complainant
during the trial. Once such rebuttal evidence is adduced and
accepted by the court, having regard to all the circumstances of the
case and the preponderance of probabilities, the evidential burden
shifts back to the complainant and, therefore, the presumptions
under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act will not again come to the
complainant's rescue.”.
19] He further relied upon judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of APS Forex services Pvt. Ltd. V/s. Shakti
International Fashion Linkers and others, 2020 ALL SCR (Cri) 433
wherein in para no. 07 has observed as under:
“7. Coming back to the facts in the present case and considering the fact
that the accused has admitted the issuance of the cheques and his
signature on the cheque and that the cheque in question was issued for
the second time, after the earlier cheques were dishonoured and that
even according to the accused some amount was due and payable, there
is a presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act that there exists a
legally enforceable debt or liability. Of course such presumption is
rebuttable in nature. However, to rebut the presumption the accused was
required to lead the evidence that full amount due and payable to the
complainant has been paid. In the present case, no such evidence has
been led by the accused. The story put forward by the accused that the
cheques were given by way of security is not believable in absence of
further evidence to rebut the presumption and more particularly the
cheque in question was issued for the second time, after the earlier
cheques were dishonoured. Therefore, both the courts below have
materially erred in not properly appreciating and considering the
presumption in favour of the complainant that there exists legally
enforceable debt or liability as per Section 139 of the N.I. Act. It appears
that both, the Learned Trial Court as well as the High Court, have
committed error in shifting the burden upon the complainant to prove
the debt or liability, without appreciating the presumption under Section
139 of N.I. Act. As observed above, Section 139 of the Act is an example
of reverse onus clause and therefore once the issuance of the cheque has
been admitted and even the signature on the cheque has been admitted,
there is always a presumption in favour of the complainant that there
exists legally enforceable debt or liability and thereafter it is for the
-- 13 of 17 --
14 C. C. No. 1901/SS/2018
accused to rebut such presumption by leading evidence. ”.
20] Accused neither examined himself nor to Mr. Sohel Bhai to show
that disputed cheques were issued by him to Mr. Sohel Bhai and further
Mr. Sohel Bhai has handed over said cheques to the complainant.
Accused has not explained as to why these cheques were handed over
by him to Mr. Sohel Bhai. In entire crossexamination, complainant has
denied that Mr. Sohel Bhai has handed over disputed cheque to him,
however lastly he answered that he don't remember that there was
transaction between him and M/s. Wilson Fish and he has put his name
in the column of payee on the cheque which was given to him by Sohel
Bhai. Thus, aforesaid admission on the part of complainant shows that
he is not sure as to from whom disputed cheque was received by him.
Besides that, there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that, he
has sold out fish worth Rs. 8,95,000/ to the accused in one transaction.
According to him, his annual transaction is 40,00,000/ to 50,00,000/.
However, said single transaction shown by the complainant is for
nearabout Rs. 9,00,000/. As per admission of complainant, he makes
34 trips in the sea in one month to catch the fish. It also appears to be
unbelievable that in one trip he caught such huge quantity of fish of
same species i.e. Ghol Fish. Generally, when any person sales such
huge quantity of fish on credit basis, certainly he should prepare bill to
that effect or take anything in writing from the customer. Except oral
evidence of complainant, there is nothing to show that, he has sold out
2453 kg of Ghol Fish to the accused @ Rs. 365/ per kg for total
amount of Rs. 8,95,345/. It is also necessary to note here that, there is
no any documentary evidence with the complainant to show that, in
past he had sold out fish to the accused. It is also necessary to note
here that, complainant don't have mobile number of accused either
-- 14 of 17 --
15 C. C. No. 1901/SS/2018
stored in his mobile or maintained with him in any other form. It is
highly unbelievable that, one can sold out such huge quantity of fish to
a unknown person without taking any details of that person and
without taking any acknowledgement of that person about receipt of
fish. In short, story of complainant is appears to be highly unbelievable.
Admission given by complainant that, he don't remember that there was
transaction between him and M/s. Wilson Fish and he has put his name
in the column of payee on the cheque which was given by Mr. Sohel
Bhai to him, coupled with other admissions of complainant that, there is
no documentary evidence about the sell of fish and he don't know
mobile number of accused, creates doubt about the case of the
complainant and shifts burden on the complainant to give evidence
about the transaction. It is also necessary to note here that complainant
don't know address of the accused. In crossexamination he stated that
he don't know that address on which demand notice was sent is not the
address of accused. Thus, from perusal of entire evidence it appears
that except disputed cheque, there is nothing to show that complainant
had sold out fish to the accused and therefore accused was liable to pay
cheque amount to the complainant. Accused has rebutted the
presumption u/s .139 of N.I. Act. Complainant has failed to show that
accused was liable to pay cheque amount. Defence of accused that there
was no transaction between him and complainant and disputed cheque
was handed over by Mr. Sohel Bhai, proprietor of M/s. Wilson Fish is
appears to be probable. Accused has rebutted presumption u/s. 139 of
N.I. Act. In result, point no. 1 is answered in the Negative.
AS TO POINT NO. 2 TO 5
21] In order to prove that cheque was returned unpaid for reason
-- 15 of 17 --
16 C. C. No. 1901/SS/2018
“Funds Insufficient”, complainant has relied upon his own oral
evidence, in addition to documentary evidence i.e. cheque return
memos. He also got examined bank witness namely Karim Parpia (C.W.
2) at Exh. 48. Evidence of Mr. Parpia shows that, he is working with
DCB bank, versova branch, Mumbai. His evidence further shows that
disputed cheque was dishonoured for the reason “Funds Insufficient” in
the account of drawer. Accused did not lead any evidence to show that
said cheque was not presented for clearance and same was not
dishonoured. Therefore, it remains proved that disputed cheque was
dishonoured for the reasons “Funds Insufficient”.
22] As per evidence available on record, cheque was dishonoured
vide memo dated 15/02/2018. Demand notice was sent on
08/03/2018 i.e. within limitation. It was returned back with postal
remark “Unclaimed”. Said complaint is filed on 20/04/2018 i.e. within
limitation from the date of cause of action. Admittedly, accused has not
paid cheque amount to the complainant till today. In result,point nos. 2
to 5 are answered in the affirmative. In result point nos. 2 to 5 are
answered in the affirmative.
AS TO POINT NO.6
23] Taking into consideration answer of points Nos. 1, it becomes
clear that the complainant has failed to prove that disputed cheque was
issued by the accused for discharging legal enforceable liability. On
that ground alone, accused is entitled for acquittal. In result, I pass
following order:
-- 16 of 17 --
17 C. C. No. 1901/SS/2018
ORDER
1] The accused no. 2. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Chakarvarty.
Proprietor of accused no. 1 Shri. Sai Sea Foods is hereby acquitted
vide Section 255(1) of Criminal Procedure code for an offence
punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2] Bail bond of accused stands cancelled.
3] Accused shall execute P.R. Bond of Rs. 15,000/, to appear
before the Higher Court as and when such court issues notice in
respect of any appeal or petition filed against this judgment, vide
section 437 (A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Said bail
bonds shall be in force for Six Months.
(Judgment is dictated and pronounced in open court.)
Mumbai (K. G. Sawant)
Dt. 24/02/2023 Metropolitan Magistrate
48th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
Dictated On : 24/02/2023
Typed On : 24/02/2023
Signed On : 24/02/2023
-- 17 of 17 --