Bombay High Court

CHUNNILAL CHIMANAJI CHOUDHARIversusHANUMANT KASHIRAM PATIL AND ANR.

Decided: 31 July 2026
Disposal: Dismissed
Bench: N R BORKAR

Holding

The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.

Summary

The appellant Chunnilal Chimanaji Choudhari appealed against the acquittal of respondent Hanumant Kashiram Patil in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial magistrate had acquitted the respondent, noting that the notice issued to him was returned unserved because his address was unknown. The appellant's counsel highlighted the lack of any response from the respondent and the failure to serve notice. The appellate court examined whether the prosecution could proceed despite the non‑service of notice. Finding that the prosecution was effectively abandoned, the court dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution.

Issues considered

Can a criminal prosecution under Section 138 NI Act continue when the notice to the accused is unserved and the accused's whereabouts are unknown?
Whether the acquittal can be set aside on the ground of procedural lapse in service of notice?

Legislation cited

Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 138

Subjects

Section 138
Negotiable Instruments Act
cheque bounce
acquittal
notice service
criminal appeal
want of prosecution

Judgment

                                                            16-apeal-151-2008.doc


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                    CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 151 OF 2008

Chunnilal Chimanaji Choudhari                     …Appellant

    V/s.
Hanumant Kashiram Patil and Anr.                  ...Respondents


Mr. Abhishek Roy i/b Adv. Abhijit Kulkarni, Advocate for the
Appellant.
Ms. Rutuja Ambekar, APP for the Respondent/State.


                                 CORAM        :   N.R. BORKAR, J.
                                 DATE         :   31.07.2026.

P.C. :

1.                This Appeal takes exception to the judgment and order

dated 19.11.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Pune in Summary Criminal Case No.850 of 2003.



2.                By the impugned judgment and order, the learned

Magistrate has acquitted the respondent No.1 for the offence

punishable under Sections 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.



3.                The office remark shows that the notice issued to the

respondent No.1 is returned unserved with remark that the

Pramod S.Lakare
                                        1/2
                                                            16-apeal-151-2008.doc


respondent No.1 is not residing at the given address and his

whereabouts are not known. The learned counsel for the appellant

submits that there is no response from the appellant.



4.                In that view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed for

want of prosecution.



                                                  [N.R.BORKAR, J.]




Pramod S.Lakare
                                         2/2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…